Connor MacLeod wrote: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.
No, you are correct. Attempting to fire an assault rifle at melee range would be just as suicidal as attacking a rifle-armed target with a melee weapon starting from rifle range. However, you can easily use a pistol at that distance, making it a matter of point-and-click rather than swinging, thrusting, etc. to gain enough momentum to penetrate armour and the like. You also don't need to be quite so accurate, since at that range their armour won't be anywhere near as effective against your pistol as it would be normally, where it may still be quite effective against your knife. Unless I'm mistaken about the effectiveness of armour against bladed weapons, that is.
As I said, its silly to assume ALL combat is automatically going to be a long range affair all the bloody time.
Ryan Thunder wrote:
No, you are correct. Attempting to fire an assault rifle at melee range would be just as suicidal as attacking a rifle-armed target with a melee weapon starting from rifle range. However, you can easily use a pistol at that distance, making it a matter of point-and-click rather than swinging, thrusting, etc. to gain enough momentum to penetrate armour and the like. You also don't need to be quite so accurate, since at that range their armour won't be anywhere near as effective against your pistol as it would be normally, where it may still be quite effective against your knife. Unless I'm mistaken about the effectiveness of armour against bladed weapons, that is.
Most body armour used by Western armies has ceramic plates in the front and back protecting the vital bits of the torso. You won't be sticking knives or bayonets through that. The rest of the armour is regular kevlar and can be stabbed through with little effort.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
What melee weapons do scuba divers use besides their diving knives? Specifically, what weapon would be useful besides that already mention broomstick/tele-staff and knife in vacuum and zero g?
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Zixinus wrote:What melee weapons do scuba divers use besides their diving knives? Specifically, what weapon would be useful besides that already mention broomstick/tele-staff and knife in vacuum and zero g?
Not many, but some:
Not a very useful gun. Reloading requires repacking the rockets in a factory environment. Still, for five shots, you do get some fairly potent underwater lethality.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Most body armour used by Western armies has ceramic plates in the front and back protecting the vital bits of the torso. You won't be sticking knives or bayonets through that.
So what will we do if and when powered armour is finally developed? Aim for the joints? Stick a battle axe head on the battle rifle the armour lets you carry?
The most practical (current-tech, sensible-cost) solution I can think of is a grenade-sized shaped charge, either on a short pole (if the attackers also have good armour), or with a short timer and an adhesive forward surface (for troops in the unenviable position of possibly engaging in close combat against power-armoured troops without being armoured themselves).
Cpl Kendall wrote:Most body armour used by Western armies has ceramic plates in the front and back protecting the vital bits of the torso. You won't be sticking knives or bayonets through that.
So what will we do if and when powered armour is finally developed?
Shoot it, obviously. You assume that our weapons technology will suddenly become vastly inferior to our defensive technology, which is rather baseless.
Ryan Thunder wrote:Shoot it, obviously. You assume that our weapons technology will suddenly become vastly inferior to our defensive technology, which is rather baseless.
You know, that wasn't what Starglider was suggesting, rather he was simply pointing out that the close combat tactics of today may not be uite so useful in the face of different technologies. But ignoring that, what you suggest could happen, with the opposite also possible.
Didn't read the whole thread, but the OP's bit about the space station made me think.
Assume zero-g situations, with a possibility of mag-boots. The time is between now and next century, with space exploration and settlement having a slow pace. 2-3 "colonies" max, a station on the moon, and a plaque on Mars that says "We were here" (or if it's China, "dao4 ci3 yi1 you2!"). Tech is still extremely similar to ours today. Think nBSG, minus FTL, fighters, etc.
Let's do a scenario. Terrorist group takes over part of a colony, demanding X. Government says F-U, sends in SWAT or whatever spec-ops. Guns may damage colony, causing all sorts of damage, including a possible colony-drop. If bullets are too slow, they won't kill or deter hostiles. That's when I think close-combat tactics will be used. I see a few weapons that can be employed in this case.
1. Bayonets. Well, Duh! They've been around for hundreds of years and I can't see them going anywhere for the next few millenia. Jab em, or even throw em, if need be. Hell, the spacesuits can even have a mechanism for launching a bayonetted rifle, for all I know. It's zero-G, so it could just be plausible.
*I'm unsure whether throwing axes, or thrown rifles will do any damage, as in my scenario, bullets that are slow enough to not damage the station won't kill the hostiles due to whatever reason (suits, armour, etc.).
pieman3141 wrote:*I'm unsure whether throwing axes, or thrown rifles will do any damage, as in my scenario, bullets that are slow enough to not damage the station won't kill the hostiles due to whatever reason (suits, armour, etc.).
At the very least, they'll almost certainly havem ore momentum due to their greater mass. Ultimately, axes in space is very Lensman.
pieman3141 wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but the OP's bit about the space station made me think.
Assume zero-g situations, with a possibility of mag-boots. The time is between now and next century, with space exploration and settlement having a slow pace. 2-3 "colonies" max, a station on the moon, and a plaque on Mars that says "We were here" (or if it's China, "dao4 ci3 yi1 you2!"). Tech is still extremely similar to ours today. Think nBSG, minus FTL, fighters, etc.
Let's do a scenario. Terrorist group takes over part of a colony, demanding X. Government says F-U, sends in SWAT or whatever spec-ops. Guns may damage colony, causing all sorts of damage, including a possible colony-drop. If bullets are too slow, they won't kill or deter hostiles. That's when I think close-combat tactics will be used. I see a few weapons that can be employed in this case.
1. Bayonets. Well, Duh! They've been around for hundreds of years and I can't see them going anywhere for the next few millenia. Jab em, or even throw em, if need be. Hell, the spacesuits can even have a mechanism for launching a bayonetted rifle, for all I know. It's zero-G, so it could just be plausible.
*I'm unsure whether throwing axes, or thrown rifles will do any damage, as in my scenario, bullets that are slow enough to not damage the station won't kill the hostiles due to whatever reason (suits, armour, etc.).
The problem arises when the terrorists don't give a fuck about damage to the colony and use high-powered rifles instead of axes.
Zixinus wrote:What melee weapons do scuba divers use besides their diving knives? Specifically, what weapon would be useful besides that already mention broomstick/tele-staff and knife in vacuum and zero g?
Vacuum and microgravity are very different from an underwater environment. Water is (relatively) dense and unfriendly stuff for ordinary bullets to pass through.
Damned if I can remember where it was, but I read a story once with some fairly believable zero-G melee weapons. One was a drill (with counter-rotating weights to make total angular momentum zero). One was basically a set of power-assisted pincers. And one was a double-edged axe with rocket motors facing in two directions. I suppose all these were developed to get rid of the problem of melee weapons in zero-g; the lack of anything to brace against, most of the time.
kinnison wrote:Damned if I can remember where it was, but I read a story once with some fairly believable zero-G melee weapons. One was a drill (with counter-rotating weights to make total angular momentum zero). One was basically a set of power-assisted pincers. And one was a double-edged axe with rocket motors facing in two directions. I suppose all these were developed to get rid of the problem of melee weapons in zero-g; the lack of anything to brace against, most of the time.
Or Battle's Sound by Harry Harrison.
That should be it. It's been around the block a few times, like in David Drake's Dogs of War anthology. Boarding combat with drillgers, gropeners, knives, rocket-powered battle axes, and emplaced machine guns. (And then there's the backpack nukes...)
Zixinus wrote:And then what weapons would be ideal for a vacuum environment? Whips?
The action of swinging that whip would send you careening unless you were braced. Almost as bad as they come. Multidirectional rockets boosters, bracing, and some magnetic clamps would get rid of that shortcoming, but thats way too much for a whip. See weapons two posts above for better solutions
Coyote: Warm it in the microwave first to avoid that 'necrophelia' effect.
We've got a few guys like Cpl Kendall here with military experience giving us information about close combat training and such, as well as some links to crazy Spetsnaz shit.
Then we've got some armchair warriors declaring with all certainty that melee combat is useless, including some backpedalling from "melee is totally useless" to "soldiers are trained primarily with firearms, not melee".
Where do all these ideas come from?
Ryan Thunder wrote:However, you can easily use a pistol at that distance, making it a matter of point-and-click rather than swinging
Ah, right.
"..history has shown the best defense against heavy cavalry are pikemen, so aircraft should mount lances on their noses and fly in tight squares to fend off bombers". - RedImperator
"ha ha, raping puppies is FUN!" - Johonebesus
"It would just be Unicron with pew pew instead of nom nom". - Vendetta, explaining his justified disinterest in the idea of the movie Allspark affecting the Death Star
I figure in Zero gee the only likely way melee is going to occur is either when you're clamped down to the surface of something (ie outside of a space station or a ship) in which case you can (kind of) use most melee weapons that already exist, or grappling of some kind, which means that wrist mounted or small handheld weapons (like a knife) will prevail, if not unarmed combat. Given the factors needed to actually move around (and the fact that momentum/recoil will be a bigger consideration in zero gee than it would be underwater or on the ground) anything else is going to be hard to imagine (unless you have some sorrt of thought-controlled reactionless propulsion or something.)
Starglider wrote:So what will we do if and when powered armour is finally developed? Aim for the joints? Stick a battle axe head on the battle rifle the armour lets you carry?
The most practical (current-tech, sensible-cost) solution I can think of is a grenade-sized shaped charge, either on a short pole (if the attackers also have good armour), or with a short timer and an adhesive forward surface (for troops in the unenviable position of possibly engaging in close combat against power-armoured troops without being armoured themselves).
Ugh. I'm not a big fan of it and its current usage in Sci fi. More often than not it seems like people play up the advantages (enahnced strength, moblity/protection, the ability to carry heavier weapons or gear, etc.) but never consider the downsides (you're nowhere near as durable as a tank or other vehicle, maintenace - especially out in the field, the sorrt of heat signature you'd generate, etc.) Power armour would probably be more of a "specialized" asset in combat, not a "standard issue" outfitting (anyone with a shoulder mounted, ,heat seeking shaped charrge weapon ought to be able to crack any power armour fairly easily in universe, for eaxmple.)
Thus, you probably don't need to worry about your "standard" troops taking it on, much less in melee. Indeed, such a proposition would be rather dangerous due to their enhanced strength (which would be dangerous enough without a weapon, though you probably could add some sort of claw/punching blade/cestus type weapon if you wnated.) You'd want to take it out with some kind of heavy weapon (energy cannon, missile launcher, etc.) Though something that "adhereS" to the target (ie some sort of adhesive shaped-charge grenade, like a Sw proton grenade or a 40K melta bomb) might do the trick as well.
Cykeisme wrote:Then we've got some armchair warriors declaring with all certainty that melee combat is useless, including some backpedalling from "melee is totally useless" to "soldiers are trained primarily with firearms, not melee".
Where do all these ideas come from?
Ryan Thunder wrote:However, you can easily use a pistol at that distance, making it a matter of point-and-click rather than swinging
Ah, right.
Oh please. Any halfwit can see a pistol's easier to use even within grappling range. It has nothing to do with my experience playing video games, which would actually lead me to conclude that the opposite is the case.
Connor MacLeod wrote:but never consider the downsides (you're nowhere near as durable as a tank or other vehicle,
But you have a much lower profile and can go into buildings.
maintenace
Maintenance and cost are technology dependent. With all currently plausible technologies, powered armour would be very expensive and maintenance intensive. However the complexity of a system doesn't necessarily correlate to cost and complexity. A dog is many orders of magnitude more complex than a HMMWV. The number of systems in a pigeon is actually higher than the number in an F-22. But dogs and pigeons can be manufactured at negligable cost and require almost zero maintenance as long as they're fueled - because their base 'technology' is very robust and reliable, and because they don't require large dedicated assembly lines. We can't do anything like that with current technology, but we'll get there eventually.
the sorrt of heat signature you'd generate
There's no fundamental reason why you'd generate a huge heat signature. Humans are only about 10% efficient at converting energy into motion. Electric motors (for example) are >90% efficient. You could be ten times the weight of a human and still only generate twice the IR signature. It's just a question of which technology you use.
So everyone's got heat-seeking AT rockets in the future. You can carry orders of magnitude less of those than of more conventional ammunition. You've also effectively raised the cost of defeating a soldier, making it more economically difficult to resist.
A power-armored soldier may not be as durable as a tank, but he's certainly more durable than a guy in body armor, or not even in body armor. If the armor is cheaper than replacing the guy in it, it may very well be more cost effective to stick everyone in one.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
There's no fundamental reason why you'd generate a huge heat signature. Humans are only about 10% efficient at converting energy into motion. Electric motors (for example) are >90% efficient. You could be ten times the weight of a human and still only generate twice the IR signature. It's just a question of which technology you use.
If that suit can do even half what is usually wanked about it, and is meant to work for long periods of time, I can't imagine any other power source besides nuclear that could be small enough, dense enough and powerful to do the job. And we all know how much heat a nuclear unit generates, unless we are talking about 100% efficiency.
And twice the IR signature is still more then otherwise. Then again, its hard to mask an IR signature anyway.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Beowulf wrote:So everyone's got heat-seeking AT rockets in the future. You can carry orders of magnitude less of those than of more conventional ammunition. You've also effectively raised the cost of defeating a soldier, making it more economically difficult to resist.
A power-armored soldier may not be as durable as a tank, but he's certainly more durable than a guy in body armor, or not even in body armor. If the armor is cheaper than replacing the guy in it, it may very well be more cost effective to stick everyone in one.
You're doing it again...
Why is the defensive technology suddenly so much improved over the offensive technology? Did the weapons designers go on a mass vacation for a hundred years or so?
