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.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Mining a planet for its resources removes those resources now? I was unaware that this was how mining worked, thanks for enlightening me!

It does if you use them to construct these habitat ships of yours. The Imperium uses planets for other resources besides raw materials as well. Like food production.

Grow food on the habitats. Bonus points for using 3D plots and taking advantage of microgravity.

Tyran wrote:Yes, I would like to see the math of how such orbital mechanics are solved.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a11098/dyson-sphere/

https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

ccs wrote:I want to see him do the math on disassembling a planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_and_blasting

Do these, just on a planet-spanning scale. It would be slow with modern technology, but given that the IoM has vastly better tech than we do this is even easier for them. Bonus points for setting up mostly automated mines in otherwise uninhabited system and shipping the mining output via stl transport ships to avoid warp issues.

Gadzilla666 wrote:I want an explanation on how we could do it and then assemble it back together as ships using modern technology. After that maybe we can do cold fusion or cure cancer.

You mine the resources and refine them. Possibly at the mine itself if you're turning the entire planet into a factory designed to mine and refine itself. With current tech it would be slow and we'd want to start by mining Mars, Venus, or an NEO so we have a habitable place to live while we set this all up. These aren't issues for the 40k universe.

You're overlooking a key concept - that of sedentary vs nomadic lifestyle. You're basically arguing that the Imperium should go nomadic when their entire social structure and technology is built around sedentary life. Their whole ethos and outlook on life is grounded in the idea of a single static home.

A home world, a home town, a home itself. Things built and rooted in a fixed position within the universe. From that they draw not just their own livelihood, but their whole identity and way of life.



The Eldar needed the birth of Slaanesh to abandon their sedentary life; and even then many of them still settled upon worlds (Exodites).

 Canadian 5th wrote:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a11098/dyson-sphere/

https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html

Your source is talking about dismantling the entire inner solar system.

That is far beyond the resources of the IoM, we are talking about sextillions of metric tons of material, while the IoM struggles to build ships that only mass a few billion metric tons.

 Overread wrote:
You're overlooking a key concept - that of sedentary vs nomadic lifestyle. You're basically arguing that the Imperium should go nomadic when their entire social structure and technology is built around sedentary life. Their whole ethos and outlook on life is grounded in the idea of a single static home.

A home world, a home town, a home itself. Things built and rooted in a fixed position within the universe. From that they draw not just their own livelihood, but their whole identity and way of life.

Your point? They can and should do this because it's the smart choice given the threats they face.

Tyran wrote:
Your source is talking about dismantling the entire inner solar system.

Yes, yes it is.

That is far beyond the resources of the IoM, we are talking about sextillions of metric tons of material, while the IoM struggles to build ships that only mass a few billion metric tons.

Building one giant ship is not an equal challenge to building the same mass in smaller vessels. As an example the UK Navy has a total displacement of approximately 439,200 tonnes (815,200 tonnes including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary). Their largest ship displaces only 65,000 tonnes by your logic they shouldn't be able to build a fleet because they can't build one singularly massive ship.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Your source is talking about dismantling the entire inner solar system.

Yes, yes it is.

That is far beyond the resources of the IoM, we are talking about sextillions of metric tons of material, while the IoM struggles to build ships that only mass a few billion metric tons.

Building one giant ship is not an equal challenge to building the same mass in smaller vessels. As an example the UK Navy has a total displacement of approximately 439,200 tonnes (815,200 tonnes including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary). Their largest ship displaces only 65,000 tonnes by your logic they shouldn't be able to build a fleet because they can't build one singularly massive ship.

No he's saying that just because you can build a 65,000Tonne ship doesn't mean you can then build a 100,000,000,000,000 Tonne ship. In fact there are huge hurdles of technology required to make advances like that. Not leave of which you're into building mega-structures that will generate their own gravity field that will have a massive impact on those living aboard. In addition you're talking about an Imperium of Mankind that still loads the ships they have by giving humans the fuel and making them walk into the reactor which basically destroys those people through extreme radiation exposure (and gods know what else that's inside those reactors). All because that's how its always been done. They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations. About an Imperium who have the right to punish and execute people for making modifications like putting a better sight onto their rifle.

Not only haven't they the technology, they don't even have the social structure nor upbringing to start even the basics of developing such technologies.

 Overread wrote:
No he's saying that just because you can build a 65,000Tonne ship doesn't mean you can then build a 100,000,000,000,000 Tonne ship.

Then it's a good thing I never suggested that. I suggested a Dyson Swarm which is millions of smaller habitats circling their star in a complex series of orbits. The articles I posted cover both types of structure as well as simple Dyson Rings and Dyson Bubbles.

Please pay attention to what I'm writing and fully read the posted links next time.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
1) it takes time for that light to reach a target (light from our own sun takes 8 minutes to reach us). So you'd have to aim and focus those mirrors not at where the ship is, but where it's going to be in the future.

The same as any weapon in common use in 40k and much faster than a macro cannon battery or missiles.

2) it takes time for that light to heat up an object. Ants get popped by magnifying glasses because they're incredibly tiny. Ships, especially on 40k, are enormous. Not only are you going to have to adjust your mirrors a good 10 minutes in advance to keep them focused on the ship, but you'd have to hope the ship follows the exact trajectory you planned for.

You do realize that lascannons are lasers and they work just fine, right? The sun has more power almost any 40k ship and properly focused won't need a ton of time or target. Aiming is handled via servitors linked into a targeting system so the mirrors that need to move do so in sync with each other.

3) as that light passes through electromagnetic fields, dust and debris, and gravity wells, it would be distorted and the focus would weaken. Which means that even if you can perfectly plan all of the above, you'd still have issues getting it to do what you want.

40k fires lasers from the ground to space without issue, this is a solved problem in-universe.

Also, we plan to use lasers to push things to Alpha Centauri with modern tech. So aiming and focusing over those distances is already plausible, why would things be worse in 40k?

 Overread wrote:
Also one torpedo or gunshot or grot through the lens of the glass and its shattered.

Yes, because this is going to be a single glass lens and not thousands or millions of polished metal mirrors... Try looking up the concept before critiquing it.

You're advocating for the Dyson sphere of defensive weapons.

Because what you're leaving out is:
- It's a huge mirror array, where each element of the array is going to need a control system and be subject to transmission delays, and coordination issues due to the scale.
- It's a huge mirror array, where each element of the array is going to need maintenance.

It's a perfectly fine idea if what you're looking for is something that could be built as a massive art project, or similar style of public works, or be the result of repurposing a public works project.

I can imagine someone trying to write up a "solar powered laser defense array" and figuring that at sufficient scale they could just cut out the laser system. The problem with that is that you have to pay more (more control elements, more maintenance, more raw materials to build it) for the system to increase the scale.

And that's before getting into "So the attacker brought its own mirror array/solar panels"...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Building one giant ship is not an equal challenge to building the same mass in smaller vessels. As an example the UK Navy has a total displacement of approximately 439,200 tonnes (815,200 tonnes including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary). Their largest ship displaces only 65,000 tonnes by your logic they shouldn't be able to build a fleet because they can't build one singularly massive ship.

Insane difference in scale, what you are asking is the equivalent of asking the UK navy to build a fleet with a total displacement in the quatrillions of metric tons.

BTW that is like giving everyone (and I mean everyone) their own personal Nimitz class supercarrier and a free battleship.

 solkan wrote:
You're advocating for the Dyson sphere of defensive weapons.

You're massively behind the conversation. Check the links I've posted a page back about how we have modern proposals to start building a Dyson swarm with modern tech.

Tyran wrote:
Insane difference in scale, what you are asking is the equivalent of asking the UK navy to build a fleet with a total displacement in the quatrillions of metric tons.

Indeed, it is a matter of scale. You start by building factories that build factories and then once each site is set up you have those factories build the mining equipment and refineries. Then those start to build and launch your mirrored space habitats.

BTW that is like giving everyone (and I mean everyone) their own personal Nimitz class supercarrier and a free battleship.

Yeah, but you can also have a population of 1 Trillion assuming 1,000,000 stations holding 1,000,000 people each. That's a low-end figure, you can get into the Quadrillions around a single star if you assume a larger swarm, larger habs, or storing some people as digital entities.

If anyone needs a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, here it is.

Edit: The above was in response to an enormous wall of text from Ernestas, which now appears to be gone, at least to me.

Also through that entire youtube video about Adrian I noted two things

1) It never once said anything about close combat - it was all GUNS and ranged weapons being used.

2) He got taken out of action numerous times by guns. It was the fact that most of them hit extremities and missed his core (barring the first few) that allowed him to keep taking injuries and surviving. Along with some insane luck in getting hit in the head around 5 or more times that I could count and surviving each time.

He was an impressive warrior, but you can clearly see that he never charged into close combat blind; he was using rifles, revolvers, grenades. All ranged weapons.





Also I thought we'd given up with close combat VS ranged and moved onto sedentary life on planets and moving the whole population itno spaceships.

This comment is in regard to human endurance, especially when pushed to the limit by fictional drugs.



Ironically, it is holywood who had portrayed completely wrong picture of real combat. In life, people just do not die if you shoot him. Person will not collapse just because you had stabbed him with a knife. In all likelihood, he would simply draw his knife and would slit your throat and will continue combat. We like to imagine combat like that, because it makes it enjoyable to watch, otherwise it would be depressing. What would happen if audience would know that artillery barrages do not kill people? That after any bombardment most people will be dying and a lot of people converted into corpse like state, being unable to move, but being unable to die quickly? What would happen if people would know that main effect of airstrikes and artillery bombardment on cities are countless trapped and slowly starving people under rubble? Streets filled with dead, dying and ones who are unable to die? We were painted a wrong image that a bullet shot = death. Even bloody white prosphorus and napalm was widely excgarated. Few are lucky enough to be killed by it quickly, most will remain half burned and left as walking corpse. Some of those people will die, others will be unlucky and shall survive. With no benevolent Nurgle to pray to, their lives afterward are grim indeed. We like to imagine that battlefields of old were about kill or be killed. You are not a first one who thought that ancient combat was deadly. In fact, fighting other men eye to eye back then with sword and rifle was the most safest time during combat. Most men would die fleeing from battle like cowards they were. After huge battle, you would not see field littered with the dead, but the dying. It would moan, it would beg. Aftermath of a battle or side effect of a conflict is actually where suffering lies, in slow demise of a man. It is death by disease, by starvation and last thing that kills you in major war is an actual enemy.

Now, I had explicitly said that wound to a critical area will result in person dying. Not all your points are critical areas and person can survive being shot in the head multiple times, crashing planes, being shredded by grenades, having its intestines on a wrong side of a body, being shot in main area of your body, being stabbed and sliced with knifes. A person can survive such wounds for extended period of time to receive after combat medical aid. What makes one person more resilient than your average Joe? I think it is a will to live and to fight. In my experience people who die and majority of humans have barely any fire in them. They have little passion and they are very quick to give up. In hospital I can say who is likely to die based on how spicy individual is. By that look in their eyes. My grandmother soldiers through operations which turn out with critical complications, brushes strokes aside. She has every imaginable disease and her body just gives up randomly. She stops hearing out of a sudden and then everything is fine later on. She had survived far beyond anyone's expectancy and doctors are in awe at her endurance. In a very similar way I had overcame medical conditions what doctors would say would be practically impossible to overcome and my very existence defies traditional medical knowledge and wisdom. I'm strong believer in human will and its ability to reshape reality. Thus by extension, I do believe that how endurant human being is in combat is largely dependent on his will. Of course, excluding critical hits, though aiming for those critical spots in combat is just a military delusion. Modern firearms are extremely ineffective weapons and soldiers effectiveness at killing anyone with them had dropped drastically since musket era and we are talking how soldiers imagine themselves headshotting most of their enemies. Prolonged exposure to ideal, firing range conditions and next no none existent practice in trying to hit each other with firearms had resulted in such weird perception.

Here is a great example of how real life commissar from W40k would look like in our world!



Do you think that it was impossible when Yarrick lost his arm and still kept fighting? Pfff, this soldier just tore his arm himself. I bet if war would be more brutal, he would be driving his power sword into the skull of some Ork warboss the very next moment!

Fun aside, I do realize that he is an extreme example, but an example nonetheless. If you say that all those things are impossible for human body to endure under some sci fi drug which would push human body to its very limits then you have to explain why this man wasn't killed. He is not the only one. We have plenty of such extreme examples. We had even such extreme examples of a large scale where soldiers rose up like zombies and ran to concentrated gunfire. They were already dead, but bloodied and muddy they rose from a battlefield where all life from it was sapped by artillery fire and concentrated poison gas attack. These zombies, and they were Russians of course had overran positions of 14 German battalions. Germans had panicked when dead rose from the earth and started charging their positions in melee. They tried to shoot them like many of you smart guys thought to do, but when that did not worked, what a soldier to do? They keep firing and hitting their enemies, but they just kept on coming. You can't kill the dead as they are already dead and thus under such supernatural threat, Imperial Guard formation had broke psychologically and it had fled battlefield.



In this example we see upwards to thousand men charging somewhat modern, massed enemy formation in melee and breaking it under psychological pressure. An aspect which many of you had utterly ignored in combat. If you think that a man can die so easily then you have to explain and also this. How gas which was deemed to be deadly to humans had utterly failed to do its task and kill those defenders?

We also ignore even simple supernatural phenomena like zombies who can overrun professional military deployed in full force, there are a lot of movies and shows who portray how that happens. Or we can talk about how Chaos hordes happen to fight against modern force deployed in choke point against entrenched military with artillery, tank and machine gun support. Such fight was during first war on Armageddon and Imperial defenders barely won, because sheer numbers of those combatants had tied down Imperial forces and Chaos could launch its elite spearhead through undefended flank of defenders to its civilian population centers and ultimately encircle defenders in a giant flanking maneuver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Also through that entire youtube video about Adrian I noted two things

1) It never once said anything about close combat - it was all GUNS and ranged weapons being used.

2) He got taken out of action numerous times by guns. It was the fact that most of them hit extremities and missed his core (barring the first few) that allowed him to keep taking injuries and surviving. Along with some insane luck in getting hit in the head around 5 or more times that I could count and surviving each time.

He was an impressive warrior, but you can clearly see that he never charged into close combat blind; he was using rifles, revolvers, grenades. All ranged weapons.





Also I thought we'd given up with close combat VS ranged and moved onto sedentary life on planets and moving the whole population itno spaceships.

I had meant to address point that a human body can't take any punishment which was raised by another fellow in a comment which I had quoted. I had provided examples where human body can take extreme levels of punishment. There are countless examples where human persevered against untold odds and hence, I think that humans can be a lot tougher to kill if they are whipped up into a frenzy and given combat drugs which would push their bodies to their limits. I had also given example on a mass scale where deadly gas had completely failed to kill garrison despite expectation from German command and every soldier on a ground. Furthermore, Russian bayonet charge on large scale during WW1 shows that even against modern armament, such charge can be extremely effective if done properly and attacker disregards his own casualties. This is I believe why most people imagine melee combat in W40k being just a fiction for a sake of cool. They can't imagine any side being so bloody determined to win an engagement that they would just throw their soldiers and people to physically push them out.

Same thing is happening everywhere. In siege of Vraks both sides often engaged in human wave assaults and fought hand to hand, because ground was far more important than human life. WW1 also had this a plenty despite huge artillery and machine gun presence, later even with widespread introduction of tanks.

Ernestas,

Your hordes need to meet grazing fire, enfilade fire and beaten zones. Never mind barbed wire and artillery. You have a wonderfully anachronistic De Grandmaison view of warfare. I am trusting that you are tongue in cheek for this thread.

My head-cannon for Space Marines and melee is that their armour is proof against the "nerveless weapons" that stop mortals from getting into melee in the real world.

Cheers,

T2B

 Ernestas wrote:

Ironically, it is holywood who had portrayed completely wrong picture of real combat. In life, people just do not die if you shoot him. Person will not collapse just because you had stabbed him with a knife. In all likelihood, he would simply draw his knife and would slit your throat and will continue combat.

Most people who get shot tend to stop taking aggressive action. Even if they're not dead, ruptured organs, shredded muscles, shattered bones, burst lungs, tend to make continued combat difficult. Yes there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

Modern firearms are extremely ineffective weapons and soldiers effectiveness at killing anyone with them had dropped drastically since musket era

Whoa, hold up, full stop. STOP.

No.

I guarantee you a modern rifle will be orders of magnitude more effective at killing people than a musket will be. What you may be confused about is the staggering number of rounds used in combat to kill an individual enemy combatant. This is not due to weapons being ineffective, but rather to these weapons being insanely well supplied, turned on anything even remotely scary, and used to hose it with firepower. This isn't always done with the intent to kill, but to suppress. Suppression is 99% of shooting in combat, ensuring an enemy has no chance to pop up or cross an area or disturb your own crossing. Suppression of this kind simply was not a thing in previous eras, it is a reflection of modern industrialized warfare. Do not mistake being profligate with ammunition as being ineffective.

I have in my home right now swords, knives, axes, shields, and firearms of various types. You ask me what I want to defend myself with, I'm not reaching for the musket, I'm not reaching for a sabre or dussack, I'm sure as hell not reaching for a longsword, I'm going to grab a modern firearm, because it will be by far the most effective tool for that job.

Do you think that it was impossible when Yarrick lost his arm and still kept fighting? Pfff, this soldier just tore his arm himself. I bet if war would be more brutal, he would be driving his power sword into the skull of some Ork warboss the very next moment!

Yarrick is such an exceptional character he's called out and recognized amidst a literal *galaxy* of untold trillions of humans, and travels in the circles of demigods.

We have plenty of such extreme examples. We had even such extreme examples of a large scale where soldiers rose up like zombies and ran to concentrated gunfire. They were already dead, but bloodied and muddy they rose from a battlefield where all life from it was sapped by artillery fire and concentrated poison gas attack. These zombies, and they were Russians of course had overran positions of 14 German battalions. Germans had panicked when dead rose from the earth and started charging their positions in melee. They tried to shoot them like many of you smart guys thought to do, but when that did not worked, what a soldier to do? They keep firing and hitting their enemies, but they just kept on coming. You can't kill the dead as they are already dead and thus under such supernatural threat, Imperial Guard formation had broke psychologically and it had fled battlefield.

There's a wee bit of misunderstanding and myth in this example, but no, the Russian's didn't just bodily absorb bullets and keep fighting as literal zombies, and the position was lost to the Germans within days. Great example of bravery under some of the first gas attacks by the defenders, but it's not what you're trying to make it out to be either.

 Ernestas wrote:

*snip a whole bunch of misinformation and misunderstanding*

The goalposts have moved so far during this whole discussion I think they're on a different filed playing a different sport now. I'm not even sure what you're really arguing any more.

The whole thing about Hollywood misrepresenting modern warfare and the effects of bullets is hilarious next to the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding that follows. Vaktathi's already touched on the "muskets are more accurate than modern rifles" hilarity which instantly torpedoes any credibility you might have still had (not that there was much anyway) but there's also the fact that all these examples you keep putting out there are often only known about because of how remarkable they are. Yes, some people have survived after having limbs blown off, and even continued fighting in some cases. The only reason we really know about them is precisely because they're so remarkable and out of the ordinary. 99.99% of people will stop fighting after those sort of injuries and more often than not it's because of physical, not mental, reasons.

Also, I have to pick up on the whole "will to live" rubbish too. It would be funny if it wasn't so insultingly ignorant. This idea that people die because they lack the mental fortitude to shrug off a physiological effect is, quite simply, dangerously incorrect and, especially in the current crisis, disgustingly so. Dude, this idea that you can just "tough it out" has no basis in science or medicine. It doesn't matter how great your mental fortitude is if your vital organs are all shutting down due to an infection or cancer or any number of other deadly conditions. The idea that you just need a positive mental attitude is exactly the kind of stupidity that's going to prolong the current crisis and we've already seen people breaking self-isolation and carrying on as if everything is normal because they think they're young and healthy and therefore invulnerable to harm. Ordinarily I might give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was yet another misinterpretation of the fact that improved recovery from major trauma and illness has been linked to attitude and mental factors but at this stage I think you're frankly just making stuff up that fits your required narrative.

At this point, I think it's obvious to anyone but you that you really don't know what you're talking about. Every single post is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstood "evidence", confirmation bias and a severely skewed view of how...well...anything works in the real world.

Are we still seriously replying to a dude with zero relevant practical experience, whose fascination with melee combat stems from swordfighting as a hobby, telling us how Hollywood gets it wrong and citing zombie movies as pertinent evidence?

Like I said above. Dunning-Kruger effect. He is literally never going to admit to being wrong about anything.

It's reminding me of when I thought dual pistols were really cool and looked up roughly how useful they actually were. Shockingly the answer is not very.

pm713 wrote:
It's reminding me of when I thought dual pistols were really cool and looked up roughly how useful they actually were. Shockingly the answer is not very.

Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

Probably depends on the tech level of the pistol - the way Overread was describing things sounded like the sort of flintlock-era pistol you'd see in a stereotypical pirate movie, as opposed to a modern pistol with a magazine.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

Probably depends on the tech level of the pistol - the way Overread was describing things sounded like the sort of flintlock-era pistol you'd see in a stereotypical pirate movie, as opposed to a modern pistol with a magazine.

Yeps!

Though I still love games like Torchlight and Grim Dawn even though the musket style weapons they use clearly have some kind of infinite ammo cheat going on! It would be really neat to play those kind of games with realistic reloading, but you'd likely need a team of people to make a party work otherwise after 2 shots you'd be out and have only a few seconds to reload before you'd get there. And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

 Overread wrote:
Yeps!

Though I still love games like Torchlight and Grim Dawn even though the musket style weapons they use clearly have some kind of infinite ammo cheat going on! It would be really neat to play those kind of games with realistic reloading, but you'd likely need a team of people to make a party work otherwise after 2 shots you'd be out and have only a few seconds to reload before you'd get there. And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

You'd probably also want a pavise to hide behind at that stage. Though at that point I think you've moved beyond what a game like Torchlight can handle and still remain true to its own style.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

Probably depends on the tech level of the pistol - the way Overread was describing things sounded like the sort of flintlock-era pistol you'd see in a stereotypical pirate movie, as opposed to a modern pistol with a magazine.

Yup. I think that specific image has its origins in descriptions of Blackbeard who was described as wearing "a sling over his shoulders, with three brace of pistols, hanging in holsters like bandoliers; and stuck lighted slow matches under his hat" in Charles Johnson's A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the most Notorious Pyrates

Old Captain Teach had a real flair for the dramatic and understood the power in an intimidating appearance.

Didn't he take it further - I thought he put the burning slow matches into his beard at one stage.

 Overread wrote:
Didn't he take it further - I thought he put the burning slow matches into his beard at one stage.

That sounds like a good way to gain the nickname "Captain No-beard-but-severe-facial-burns"

 Overread wrote:
They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations.

Thank The Emperor. I wouldn't want to be mentally functional for that job.

Matora wrote:

 Overread wrote:
They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations.

Thank The Emperor. I wouldn't want to be mentally functional for that job.

There's hints that the mind wiping isn't perfect - that some servitors do recall part of their humanity; buried beneath layers of obedience and servitude.

 Overread wrote:

Matora wrote:

 Overread wrote:
They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations.

Thank The Emperor. I wouldn't want to be mentally functional for that job.

There's hints that the mind wiping isn't perfect - that some servitors do recall part of their humanity; buried beneath layers of obedience and servitude.

The Mechanicus trilogy has a servitor basically rebel and get other servitors to join in. But there were many shady things going on in those books it's not going to be common.

I thought about this thread the other day. Even in the middle of a quarantine my unit made me go to the range and qualify on my weapon. So impractical to shoot and hit targets popping up from 50-300 meters away. With a weapon that can also switch to full auto and fire way more rounds.

 Overread wrote:
And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

I'd say 4 shots

It seems that 1-2 shots per minute is reasonable for poorly trained conscripts, 3 for reasonably trained soldiers, 4 for well trained soldiers, and 5 for the truly exceptional (and probably unsustainable). I'm fairly sure Sharpe has Redcoats shooting 4 per minute as their schtick for being well-drilled compared to most other troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Ernestas wrote:

*snip a whole bunch of misinformation and misunderstanding*

The goalposts have moved so far during this whole discussion I think they're on a different filed playing a different sport now. I'm not even sure what you're really arguing any more.

The whole thing about Hollywood misrepresenting modern warfare and the effects of bullets is hilarious next to the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding that follows. Vaktathi's already touched on the "muskets are more accurate than modern rifles" hilarity which instantly torpedoes any credibility you might have still had (not that there was much anyway) but there's also the fact that all these examples you keep putting out there are often only known about because of how remarkable they are. Yes, some people have survived after having limbs blown off, and even continued fighting in some cases. The only reason we really know about them is precisely because they're so remarkable and out of the ordinary. 99.99% of people will stop fighting after those sort of injuries and more often than not it's because of physical, not mental, reasons.

Also, I have to pick up on the whole "will to live" rubbish too. It would be funny if it wasn't so insultingly ignorant. This idea that people die because they lack the mental fortitude to shrug off a physiological effect is, quite simply, dangerously incorrect and, especially in the current crisis, disgustingly so. Dude, this idea that you can just "tough it out" has no basis in science or medicine. It doesn't matter how great your mental fortitude is if your vital organs are all shutting down due to an infection or cancer or any number of other deadly conditions. The idea that you just need a positive mental attitude is exactly the kind of stupidity that's going to prolong the current crisis and we've already seen people breaking self-isolation and carrying on as if everything is normal because they think they're young and healthy and therefore invulnerable to harm. Ordinarily I might give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was yet another misinterpretation of the fact that improved recovery from major trauma and illness has been linked to attitude and mental factors but at this stage I think you're frankly just making stuff up that fits your required narrative.

At this point, I think it's obvious to anyone but you that you really don't know what you're talking about. Every single post is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstood "evidence", confirmation bias and a severely skewed view of how...well...anything works in the real world.

I thoroughly agree. I work in healthcare. I've helped care for very motivated people who have died of cancer or pneumonia or liver failure despite their motivation. Having a positive outlook helps, but it is no substitute for vital organs that have failed.