Realistic wanked out swords/close range weapons in sci-fi.

[Zixinus]

You guys do know that we still fix bayonets when assaulting an enemy position like a trench or fortification right? And bayonet drills are something run through with regular frequency.

The utility of the bayonet is questionable, especially in the time of automatic weapons. I recall that originally, the bayonet was armed on muskets and other weapons that had to be manually reloaded, all the way to WW1.
Still, its still a sharp knife on the end of the rifle.

What I would like to know, is whether bayonet drills are run in regular modern militaries? I don't find it impossible, but somehow I imagine that bayonets are pretty much reserved for special forces and the like nowadays.

[Aaron]

What I would like to know, is whether bayonet drills are run in regular modern militaries? I don't find it impossible, but somehow I imagine that bayonets are pretty much reserved for special forces and the like nowadays.

The whole point of my post was to show that the average grunt in a Western military (Canada) still uses his bayonet with regular frequency. We fixed bayonets for clearing trenches, bunkers, CQB and urban ops. As well as for riot control. We also practiced bayonet drill at least once every six months, the infantry guys did it more often and I've seen them do it for PT.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ok, I know its not much of an excuse, but I was tired when I posted last. A bayonet can be useful for killing opponents without expending ammunition.

My position is that abandoning ranged weaponry to favour the exclusive use of melee weapons in combat is suicide, and that short-barreled guns are still deadlier than melee weapons even at short range.

Thus:

[Aaron]

It goes without saying that your firearm is more effective in combat than your bayonet. The purpose of the bayonet in modern combat is to serve as a fallback and ready weapon in certain situations. That's why we fix them before entering CQB conditions, so they'll be handy. And for riot control the purpose is intimidation. The days of the bayonet charge are long gone.

[Zixinus]

Now that we had the whole "ranged versus melee" thing over with, can we post fun ideas?

[Teleros]

My position is that abandoning ranged weaponry to favour the exclusive use of melee weapons in combat is suicide

Absolutely.

and that short-barreled guns are still deadlier than melee weapons even at short range.

It'd probably depend on the sort of weaponry you have. To take 40k as an example, an Imperial Guard officer can have a power sword that cuts through Space Marine armour fairly easily, and a laspistol that's about as effective as a flashlight against said armour.

[Ford Prefect]

It'd probably depend on the sort of weaponry you have. To take 40k as an example, an Imperial Guard officer can have a power sword that cuts through Space Marine armour fairly easily, and a laspistol that's about as effective as a flashlight against said armour.

Conversely, he could have a plasma pistol which will melt him pretty goddamn well. Conversely, plasma pistols have limited quantities of photohydrogen before requiring a reload.


Anyway, if we're talking cool ideas for close combat, you can't go past the gigantic rocket powered drill arms of Cannon God EXaXXion, or just drills in general (rocket propelled or not). Admittedly, they're really not all that sane for any sort of close quarters combat, but they are really cool and would be very messy (like chainsaws).

[Teleros]

I think the OP wanted something a little saner than that .

Which reminds me - people have been talking about military close combat weapons a lot, but what about the criminals for example? What sort of nifty close quarters weapons might we see here?

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm larrgely posting this because I actually have some shit to bring to the fore, although I see that plenty of other people have already covered it. (Still a bit more data never hurts.) I also got permission from Wilkens ot post his comments. After this, I'm through with the actually debating Zix, because I've already explained the bloody point far more than I really ought to have needed to.

No for the first, and only in faint concept for the second (pressure the supersonic air generated by the bullet leaving the barrel by supersonic speed to subsonic level). However, are you seriously telling me that its not worth using it at all? I mean, trying to take out a person quietly is risky procedure in the first place, and it is usually enough if the rest of of the unlucky guy's comrades aren't alerted.

No, I'm telling you that your hypothetical "silenced" guns still aren't going to be anynwhere near as silent as a knife can be. Which is the bloody point.

Also, there are not only silencers, but special ammunition that makes very little noise. And if you are that goddamn nitpicky, let me point out towards the wonderful weapon called the "crossbow" with "poisoned bolts". And I also recall that there are very nasty poisons out there.

The "special ammnition" you refer to is called "subsonic" ammo. IE its below the speed of sound. Once you go supersonic the weapon won't be. Which as noted, puts a number of limitations on the weapon itself/

Oh, and crossbows will be silent too, even though they're mechanical weapons? How much noise do you think they make, exactly? They do make "silencerS" for those weapons as well (As bows) Which, again, is the point like with guns. But hey, there's always blowguns.

The quote I used was from here: http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg172-e.htm

Which pretty much tells us what Covenant already noted. They're quiet(er), but still not exactly super silent. And their use depends heavily on people not recognizing a gyrojet firing.

In order to attack a foe with a ranged weapon, with a melee you have to get close. And unless you can magically behind the foe, or make him forget that you are even there, you have to charge. Close quarters combat or not. Also, does the term "close quarters" automatically mean "hand-to-hand"?

See what Shroom said. This actually meshes with what I've heard from the military types I asked. And its apparently what they also teach in the army unarmed combat. (see quote below)

Yes it was. First word that came to my head. If I mention butterfly knifes, would that be better?

Probably.

Yes I have. And I pointed out that I myself described two weapons that are not super-sized swords or massive weapons, but small and concealable. I also keep pointing out that not only military use should be considered for these weapons.[/qute]

Then remind me why you decided to reply to my original post with such an obviously foolish reply if you apparently knew better? It certainly wasn't evident that you were actually aware of any of this shit or thinking about it any great detail.

I recall that the Marines are also equivalent of the elite (NOT special forces, elite) forces, and are trained in a wide variety of areas. I knife is not necessarily a combat weapon. I admit that it isn't unlikely that they might need it, but I wager that almost every soldier has a higher body count from his gun then his knife.

... The Marines were simply the most immediate example I can come up with. The US Army does so as well (they call it "modern army combatives" or just "combatives" here for eaxmple referecens

If you need a more specific example there is here

Under "handheld weapons"

Handheld weapons provide a significant advantage during a fight. For soldiers to be well trained in their use there must be connectivity between the techniques of armed and unarmed fighting. As soldiers progress in their training, bayonet fighting techniques that are taught in initial entry training will merge with the other elements of hand-to-hand fighting to produce a soldier who is capable of operating across the full range of force.

and

In most combat situations, small arms and grenades are the weapons of choice. However, in some scenarios, soldiers must engage the enemy in confined areas, such as trench clearing or room clearing or where noncombatants are present. In these instances, or when your primary weapon fails, the bayonet or knife may be the ideal weapon to dispatch the enemy. Soldiers must transition immediately and instinctively into the appropriate techniques based on the situation and the weapons at hand.

There's an even earlier reference to "combatives" dating back to WW2 onward:

Hand-to-hand combat is an engagement between two or more persons in an empty-handed struggle or with handheld weapons such as knives, sticks, and rifles with bayonets. These fighting arts are essential military skills. Projectile weapons may be lost or broken, or they may fail to fire. When friendly and enemy forces become so intermingled that firearms and grenades are not practical, hand-to-hand combat skills become vital assets.

Noticing a pattern? I should also note when I asked Wilkens (whose quote I will post if he permits me to) he explained that in close quarter fighting it was expected for there to be a "better than even" chance of getting into grappling range (where a close combat weapon can offer an advantage.) Call me crazy, but that seems to run contrary to what you keep insisting (IE that guns are inherently superior in virtually any situation over a melee weapon.)

I need to back up the idea that modern militaries are most likely to train their soldiers with ranged combat weapons, that they are more likely to use and depend on? I mean, which one would you consider more redundant from a typical soldier's equipment, a gun or a knife? Having both is ideal, yes, but which one would you take?

No, I'm saying you can try to back up your "recollections and suppositions" regarding the timeframe issue. You made a specific claim, and claims can and do demand proof when the situation warrants. Or am I to seriously believe you are mysteriously immune from burden of proof when it is asked or demanded of you?

Then again I could also point out I'm waiting for you to provide the proof on the whole "lasers are silent" bit as well.

What the fuck are you implying anyway? Yes, I know that soldiers are somewhat trained in melee combat, but isn't their the dominant weapon their guns?

Who the fuck said anythign about "dominant weapons?" I'm addressing your idiotic reply to me way back with my first post, that a gun is somehow inhnerently better in virtually any situation (or basically, any situation, the virtually seems to be more of an afterthought in your thinking.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Oh, and here's Wilken's post. I'd like to thank him for taking the time to answer my question.

Unarmed fighting is taught mostly for a final line of defense. Essentially the expetation is that in paticularly close quarters battle or in pitched combat there is a better than even chance you will meet an emey within grappling range. In that case most unarmed/non-firearm trianing at least for Marines is focused on utilizing every tool at your disposal to beat your enemy so that you live and he dies. This means a heavy emphasis on Bayonet in boot camp followed by MCMAP (Marine corps Martial Art Program) which focuses on using either the rifle or a "weapon of opportunity" to subdue an opponent quickly.

Whether it is focused on for stealth aspects I have no knoweldge of but for the average Marine the focus is to utilize it when fighting becomes extremely close quarters and the rifle become too unwieldy to aim properly (and if you can't then don't fire because you risk hitting your guys as much as the eemy).

[Connor MacLeod]

My position is that abandoning ranged weaponry to favour the exclusive use of melee weapons in combat is suicide, and that short-barreled guns are still deadlier than melee weapons even at short range.

Which should be bloody obvious. Even I admitted way back in my first post that "long range" combat would favor a rifle, but my bloody point was (and still is) is that NOT ALL FORMS OF COMBAT ARE THE SAME. Which has, been, obviosuly, corroborated by various others (people and sources.) It's not that difficult to figure out.

Noone I can tell (and certainly not me) is saying that modern forcees are somehow going to stop using firearms in favor of knives or other melee weapons, but its blatantly obvious to anyone that they're virtually useless either. It depends entirely upon the circumstnaces in which soldiers will find themselves. As I said, its silly to assume ALL combat is automatically going to be a long range affair all the bloody time.

[Connor MacLeod]

Which reminds me - people have been talking about military close combat weapons a lot, but what about the criminals for example? What sort of nifty close quarters weapons might we see here?

I'd doubt it would be much different from what the military uses - knives of some kind. They might be bigger or nastier looking than what the military might use, but they'd still probably use knives because of manuverability in close quarters, silence (silent killing would favor some gangers) and conceealment. (Same reason they'd probably favor pistols.) In Necromunda, ,for eample, knives seem to be quite popular among many gangers (though some, like the Goliaths, favor huge weapons. But then concealment isn't a big priority for the Goliaths.)

[Ford Prefect]

And really, taking all that sort of thing into consideration (the military doctrine Connor just posted), it really can't hurt to equip a soldier with a Serious (TM) pointy thing, just in case. Really, you wouldn't want some big, like a chainsaw axe or one of my rocket propelled drills. However, a knife with superior cutting abilities (the so-called 'vibroknife'), or maybe even some like a chainsaw bayonet could be useful - both 40k and Gears of War have successfully attached chainsaws to guns, and not only is it cool, it's potentially quite lethal.

Another idea which I've been using personally, though is on the very outer edge of 'realistic' is some sort of T1000-esque morphing glove, which goes from 'grabby fingers' to 'slicing death' at the figurative flick of a switch.

[Connor MacLeod]

40K makes heavy use of monomolecular knives or knives built of super-strong materials (Adamantium), both among the Guard and Space Marines. There's really nto much more need for anything beyond that. Sword or axe like weapons are generally reserved for specialized "assault" troops (some heavy infantry may use them), or as officers weapons. This is because there ARE some enemies that require something that big and nasty tot ake down (Tyranids, for example. Orks can be decapitated quite fine by a monomol knife.)

I will note that vibor-weapons are also prominent in 40K but they're considered more primitive than other kinds (like the monomol blades.)

[Sea Skimmer]

Every realistic solider should already have an excellent close quarters melee weapon, something that more effective and easier to use then a mere knife and more rugged and shorter then a rifle with a bayonet. This weapon is called the entrenching tool, notoriously effective throughout its modern existence. More then one current military trains its troops specifically in the use of the things as weapons.

Carrying a dedicated melee weapon is a pointless waste; you could have carried several grenades or spare magazines instead.

[Connor MacLeod]

I forgot entrenching tools. A small axe or hatchet probably would also work (although aren't entrenching tools also axes of a kind?) since that's as much a tool as a weapon.)

[Ford Prefect]

I forgot entrenching tools. A small axe or hatchet probably would also work (although aren't entrenching tools also axes of a kind?) since that's as much a tool as a weapon.)

The Germans have entrenching tools with sharpened/serrated edges, as I recall. I'm not sure if other armies world-wide do anything similar (though it wouldn't surprise me).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The bayonet does have its use in jungle warfare where the fighting can get to close quarters fairly easily. It was part of the basic military training given to conscripts in my country. If I recall, doctrine was such that we are to stab the enemy to make sure he's dead after we take down a machine gun post or something. Ammunition is never enough when fighting in a jungle so we save ammo that way.

[PeZook]

The Germans have entrenching tools with sharpened/serrated edges, as I recall. I'm not sure if other armies world-wide do anything similar (though it wouldn't surprise me).

The Spetznaz have ones that are weighed for throwing. At least that's what I heard

[Ford Prefect]

The Spetznaz have ones that are weighed for throwing. At least that's what I heard

Hmm, perhaps that's the weapon being used in the 'backflip hatchet attack' motivational poster.

[Block]

I forgot entrenching tools. A small axe or hatchet probably would also work (although aren't entrenching tools also axes of a kind?) since that's as much a tool as a weapon.)

The Germans have entrenching tools with sharpened/serrated edges, as I recall. I'm not sure if other armies world-wide do anything similar (though it wouldn't surprise me).

The standard US e-tool is not exactly serrated in the way a knife would be, but it does have a sort of ripple in it that does allow for easier cutting.

[Beowulf]

I forgot entrenching tools. A small axe or hatchet probably would also work (although aren't entrenching tools also axes of a kind?) since that's as much a tool as a weapon.)

An entrenching tool is a type of short shovel. It's nominally used for making foxholes or trenches.

[PeZook]

An entrenching tool is a type of short shovel. It's nominally used for making foxholes or trenches.

In reality, it is a strategic tool of vital importance.

...because without it, building field latrines would be really hard.

Here is a basic summary of nasty shovel techniques that make things hurt

[Chevron_Seven]

... force lances in Andromeda, etc.

The force lance in Andromeda was actually a practical weapon given it was turned into the equivelent of a do all weapon.

Force Lance

1) 'Smart Bullets'

Capable of intercepting incoming projectiles, morters and homing on targets. (Season 2)

2) Plasma bursts (Season 2)

3) Self Destruct ( Season 1 - 2)

4) Security feature that zapped anyone who touched it besides the owner. (Season 1 - 5)

5) Power transfer feature ( Season 5)

6) Could extend to become a staff with the gun features still enabled. (Season 1 - 2)

The power of a Force Lance was something like 30,000 volts IF I recall correctly. They got overrun by zombies and they only got taken out by 10,000 volts of energy. Each Force Lance could only shoot 3 times at a level equal to that amount.

It also had a taser feature that could be used in either staff mode by contact or through the air. And also the plasma burst could be used as a plasma torch in a pinch.

[Shroom Man 777]

The fact that the GRU logo looks just like Batman's always gets to me.