 Ambidexterity & 2 Weapons vs. 1 Weapon |
  |
 Jun 4 2006, 08:05 AM
Post
#76
|
|||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222  |
I have not, in fact, ever been in life or death combat. I did get some unarmed and club training in the military because I was trained as an MP (in the Finnish DF), but it was for peace time operations only. Against any armed opponents we'd have our assault rifles, and we were taught to always trust 180 rounds of 7.62x39mm over our hands. If I remember correctly, Raygun has not been in the military, but has way, way more experience in everything gun-related than I do.
They were crap, and, AFAIK, they were engaging them somewhere between 5 and 30 meters -- this was downtown Mogadishu, after all, and the helo came down on or right next to a lot of shanties. Shughart and Gordon were armed with an M14 and a CAR-15, respectively, and at least Shughart also fired personal weapons from the helo crew. The most common weapon for the somalis in those crowds was probably the AK-47 and copies. If someone believes the two could have done the same had they been 1337 ninjas with katanas instead, I fear for their mental health.
Such examples are quite rare, because it's usually just the fatally stupid and completely insane that decide to engage firearms with knives and swords.
I'm pretty sure the average shadowrunner is more often in situations where there is at least some visibility and he starts off more than 5 meters from the enemy than in situations where he's completely blind and the enemy is already hugging him. Or maybe that just goes for those shadowrunners who appreciate living.
With anything? I guess it may be better than never having been anywhere near anything even indirectly combat-related. Or it may just as well breed ignorance because LARP combat is governed by an utterly different set of laws from actual combat. Not that I believe for a second you can beat an airsoft gun with a foam sword in most LARPing scenarios. Zero recoil, RoFs beyond 800rpm, magazine capacities generally well above 50 and extremely light, easily maneuverable weapons lead to lots of fake-dead motherfuckers.
Again, I'm sure DEVGRU will appreciate that. They run such tests non-stop, and have done so for decades. Same goes for most special operations forces around the world, and lately all well-funded military and police forces. Amazingly, every single one of them has reached the same conclusion: that guns trump swords. Enough so that, while they do also get taught some unarmed and knife fighting techniques, there is absolutely no question about which is the #1 killing tool.
Why do you hate Darwin? |
||||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:16 AM
Post
#77
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
1337 ninjas would've just hidden and not had to kill anyone! DUH! Also, the example that was mentioned said "held off thousands of Somalis armed with machete’s and AK's". Really, its more of a gun vs gun fight. I originally interperated it as the somalis had machetes mostly, with a few aks, and the delta force guys were able to hold them off by using guns, showing guns trumps swords. Not guns vs guns with a few machetes thrown in. If the case is delta force guys vs somalis with aks, all it shows is training pays off.
I can, simply because the guy using the airsoft gun is just as untrained, and might just jump back and scream when you charge at him, rather than drawing and fireing in a manner similar to a trained professional. Maybe he hits the trigger guard instead of the trigger with his finger. Left the safety on. (Do they even have safetys?) Left his clip empty. Was out of CO2. Guns are much more complex than a sword, and have more chance to malfunction.... not to say that its the case in anything remotely resembling a large number of cases, but the less trained the person is using it, the more likely user error will occur. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:28 AM
Post
#78
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Since no somali could get within machete range of Shughart and Gordon before getting killed, it was assault rifles vs. assault rifles. I'm sure there were hundreds or thousands of somalis that would have wanted to get closer, but even they weren't that stupid. They just waited for the hundreds or thousands of AK-carrying guys to get lucky.
So what you're saying is, as long as both combatants are fucking morons, the guy with the sword wins? I can buy that. That has no bearing on the majority of RL or SR combat, however.
And in doing so would have abandoned the only reason they were there. Pfeh. Ninjas are pussies. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:39 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
I dunno, I'd say quite a lot of people are fucking morons and walk around with a knife of gun with them with the "I can use this and be ok" idea behind it. When a situation comes up, who knows who'll win, simply cause they're both fucking morons.
As far as SR combat goes, you're right, but trolls bows shooting through tanks isn't very good either, but it happens. Sword guys can beat rifles sometimes too, it happens. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:51 AM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The clinically retarded who are holding a weapon for the first time usually stay the hell away from combat. Or else they get killed in short order while those who know what the fuck they're doing continue fighting. Either way, they make no real impact in the serious fighting that goes on around the world between groups of people with firearms.
Even the idiots you saw jumping around in the streets with AKs in the footage of "war" in Liberia are bright enough to kill equally sucky people with machetes. Melee can be effective in SR, way more so than IRL (like I implied in my very first message in this thread), but that doesn't really have anything do with the relative stupidity of all the characters in the game. It's got more to do with the same sort of silly rules that allow for anti-vehicular bows, like you said. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 12:52 PM
Post
#81
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Slight nitpick 1: Daito translates very roughly as "longsword" and is generally synomous with katana. Slight nitpick 2: A bamboo sword is called a Shinai. It is commonly used in Kendo and other competetive martial arts today due to the fact that they are safer than traditional hardwood swords. Slight nitpick 3: Shinai were not commonly used when musashi was fighting. Instead more dangerous but more realistic curved hardwood swords were used for practice. These swords were all called bokken which translates very roughly as "wooden blade." Bokken does not simply refer to a sword carved from an oar. Slight nitpick 4: Musashi chose to use an oar for his weapon against Kojiro Sasaki simply because of the reach advantage it provided. The oar was longer than Sasaki's nodachi. Sasaki did die from his wounds. It is quite easy to beat someone to death with a wooden sword.
Just because they didn't try a massed suicide charge dosn't mean that a suicide charge doesn't work. Zulus armed with spears have used the tactic to kick British ass. The thing about suicide charges though is that they are suicidal. The entire point is to throw as many bodies at the enemy as is possible so that they would be able to kill them fast enough. Some will get to melee range and those that do can cause significant damage. Once the initial defenders are taken down and the fire abates the rest f the group would be able to charge in practically unhindered. Of course, most of the original waves wil be slaughtered. Suicide charges can work in a one-vs-one situation, as well. It is quite possible for a kniveman to charge a gunman and cause fatal injuries before succumbing to gunshot wounds himself. But suicide charges are usually a waste of lives. They are only to be used sparingly, as the Zulu's found out the hard way. Guns and knives, in general, are used from completely different postures. On the streets, guns are most often as standoff weapons. They can be used to respond to attacks, to maintain distance, and to maintain control over an enemy. Knives, on the other hand, are weapons of assasins. They work best when the enemy is unaware; you shake a friend's hand with your right and gut him with your left or you sneak up and stab them in the back. The big difference is that you need less manuvering and less deception to effectivly use a gun in most cases but a knife can cause potentially more damage. if you ever have a chance to use it simply due to the side of the cavity you can potentially carve out. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 01:54 PM
Post
#82
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The Brits did not all have several select-fire small arms in arms reach, nor would they have been well enough trained to effectively engaged several fast-moving targets with cover had they had such weapons. Sure, if a thousand somalis had decided to charge the 2 Deltas at the same time, that would no doubt have worked. The amount of courage required to do that would have pretty much negated the advantage in discipline of TFR, though. In fact, the amount of courage that kind of suicide charge takes crosses the border into stupidity in my book. The Spraying Bullets Wildly Around Corners probably allowed them to overtake Shughart, Gordon and Durant with less casualties.
I take it this refers to "street level" streets? In which case it's largely true. When very poorly trained and undisciplined combatants engage each other with firearms, it's mostly suppressive fire. With disciplined and trained combatants, however... Well, US soldiers on the streets of Iraq are rather more commonly "assassinated" with firearms than knives. :) In very specific and constricting sets of circumstances, I admit that knives can be more effective killing tools. I'm only saying these scenarios make up a small minority of all the lethal combat that takes place between humans.
So you're only comparing knives to handguns with FMJs when you cannot get off a well aimed shot? Anyway, given an opponent that doesn't fight back, anyone with basic weapon handling skills can score a kill within a second with any serious weapon, while if the opponent does fight back doing a comparison like this becomes kinda hard. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jun 4 2006, 02:10 PM |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 02:02 PM
Post
#83
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
No, no, it's okay. I pray that, too. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 06:45 PM
Post
#84
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
No, I'm simply making an observation based on maximum potential wound size per attack against an unarmored enemy in general.
Of course, which is entirely my point. Using a blade effectivly against an armed enemy requires a great deal of manuvering that is not necessary if you use a gun instead. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 07:09 PM
Post
#85
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I'd love to see the knife which, with a single attack, causes more lethal tissue damage to a human than 9 pellets of 00 buck at 1200fps or, say, a .308 Win 165gr HP at 2700fps. A Daiklave, perhaps? :)
Okay. I guess I'm being a bit aggressive about this because I'd like it to be made absolutely clear that, as a rule, in combat, whether it be in apartment or office buildings, forests, beaches, fields, streets, or hills, guns trump swords. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 07:37 PM
Post
#86
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
If you measure lethality by the volume of a permeant wound cavity with preference given to depth than a gladuis or practically any other wide blade of sufficient length. Of course, 9 pellets of buckshot has some advantage because they create 9 separate cavities that may or may not overlap. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 07:48 PM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I'm pretty sure nobody's ever made an edged weapon that will create a wound cavity in tissue which can challenge some .308 HP loads in volume. Or can you fit an NFL spec football inside a wound caused by a gladius? You can beat most combat small arms in depth of penetration with any a blade that's more than 2 feet long (though you'll need a greatsword to match heavier solid bullets), but it makes little difference when you're going to get complete penetration of the target human body with most attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 07:53 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,479 Joined: 6-May 05 From: Idaho Member No.: 7,377 |
Guys, we can solve this quickly and easily. I'll go get an old broomstick and duct tape foam on it, one of you get a squirt gun. Just make sure you yell "Burst fire!" when you attack.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:32 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
For really close quarters I would prefer a knife.
Regarding the gun (pistol): I have seen people miss a 2m² target at 10 meters for 40 tries in a row, and that was under ideal, aka no-stress, situations. Of course, they weren't trained. Neither was I, but I might have been just talented :P. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:36 PM
Post
#90
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Did someone tell them what the small protrusions on the top of the gun were for? Were they legally blind? The first time my MP platoon handled our (at least) 30-year-old, heavily beaten up Hi-Powers, there was only one guy who managed to miss the 60cm diameter round targets at 25 meters more than once out of 10 rounds, and he was the dumbest motherfucker I've ever known. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:54 PM
Post
#91
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
They probably moved the gun down when pulling the trigger (that seems to be the most likely explanation). I am not sure if they hit later in basic military training :D. But then, only officers and medical personnel carried pistols in our unit ;). Everytime someone mentions finnish military, i think of Simo Häyhä |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 10:31 PM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 19-May 06 Member No.: 8,576 |
A small pistol can be used almost as if it was a jabbing knife in close quarters, only you don't need to commit to the attack to use it. Cybernetic triggers make this even more true.
As long as ammo (and jamming) isn't a huge issue ranged weapons rule. In a fight between a moderately trained kendo enthusiast and someone wielding a rifle or weapon of equal or greater barrel length while inside, I'd go ahead and bet on the guy with the sword. But even still I'd be a little nervous about losing my money, and the distinct possibility that the two would kill each other. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 06:05 AM
Post
#93
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 19-April 06 From: Rio Rancho, NM Member No.: 8,484 |
I'm no expert, but I've gotta say that there are very, very few situations when a knife or sword beats a gun. If you don't believe me, ask the samurai (very skilled swordsmen) who got cut down by Oda Nobunaga's musket wielding troops (far less trained with their slow rate of fire, inaccurate guns). Or, for a more modern example, the Japanese officers in World War II that led banzai charges armed with katana and more often than not got cut to ribbons by the opposing American soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 10:15 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
In response to the "it takes one action to cut a guy, two actions to shoot him" comment made earlier:
A lot of places that provide firearm instruction will teach stress firing techniques. One of the things that gets taught is point shooting; the sights on the gun aren't used, and often times the gun isn't even brought up to eye level, because the intention of the drill is to get the shooter familiar enough with the weapon he's using that they're able to engage targets at the kind of close ranges we're talking about (within a couple of meters) as quickly as possible. Weapon familiarity and hand-eye coordination let you know within a small enough arc where your weapon is pointed that, once the gun is in hand and pointed in the right direction (just like you have to have a blade in hand and pointed in the right direction before you cut someone), you start shooting, and at the kind of ranges point shooting is meant to be used at, you should be on target. If anyone's having trouble visualizing this, a decent example in film can be found in Collateral, when Vincent (Tom Cruise) finds himself being held at gunpoint by a thief in an alley. After knocking the gun out of line with his face (a cool-looking move, but not what we're watching this bit for), he's got a very limited amount of time to handle the situation, as the thief is still armed and has an accomplice (who is also carrying a gun, although it's not drawn). Vincent draws his sidearm, rotates it to the horizontal without raising it above his lower ribs, and fires twice into his target's torso, then turns to engage the accomplice. "Aiming" in the classic sense (lifting the gun to eye level, extending the weapon at arm's length, and aligning the sights) never happened, and was unnecessary at that range. Are there situations where I'd rather have a knife than a gun? Sure, I can think of a couple. However, the likelihood of my encountering one of them is so small, even compared to the relatively low chance of my encountering a situation where I need a gun, that it seems almost silly to devote more than a small percentage of your training time towards those situations. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2006, 12:04 AM
Post
#95
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Speaking as the guy who broke his hand, uh... no shit. I learned the difference between "upper knuckles hitting temple" and "lower knuckles hitting solid bone next to temple." It's a few degrees of head twist. I get the impression that missing happens relatively often if they name the type of fracture after people who punch each other for a living. Since I was a teenager with no real training in how to punch people (and I didn't have wonderful advisors like you on the Internet to tell me how to do it right, either), I tend to look at breaking my hand on someone's head as being a learning experience that I'd like to try and save others from experiencing, if I get the chance. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 6 2006, 09:11 AM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
In that case, if you don't know what the hell you're doing, yeah, aiming for a dime sized target thats surrounded by dense bone isn't exactly the best idea. Better ones would be the throat, side of the jaw, nose, solar plexus or groin. Mostly soft targets, called so because you don't have to hit them as hard to cause damage.
Regardless, when you have a glove on over your hand, you're really only able to hit the side of their head, with maybe a little more pressure on the temple from where your knuckles compressed the foam a bit more. Mostly, its called a boxers fracture because even when you know what you're doing, you'll mess up eventually, so when your living is punching, you're gonna screw up and break a little bone every now and then. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2006, 12:02 AM
Post
#97
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 139 Joined: 14-October 05 Member No.: 7,844 |
The part of that that should be in emphasis is that it was a wooden sword, not that he used one. Miyamoto Musashi killed many adversaries with two weapons. He got as far as he did with two, not one. He was skilled enough with a sword that he could handle two. Two weapon fighting is tough. Almost impossible to do effectively. But there are some who overcome that obstacle and become good two weapon fighters. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 9 2006, 05:12 AM
Post
#98
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
That's odd. In Musashi's A Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho), he writes in the Book of Water that two swords should only be used when there are many enemies. He mentions using "two swords" a few times in books other than the Book of Water, but he doesn't mean literally using two swords, rather that you are using all of your resources (e.g. focus, perception, terrain, etc.) to fight; if he'd meant it literally, it would have been in the Book of Water with the rest of the weapon techniques. Against a single skilled opponent, he himself always used a single sword, even though he is generally held to be the inventor of the two-sword school of fencing (Nito Ryu). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 9 2006, 12:20 PM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 139 Joined: 14-October 05 Member No.: 7,844 |
I stand corrected. I admit that I can make a mistake too. However, you don't have to be sarcastic and downright rude about it.
I used to take kendo, and after the class, our instructor gave us the option to hang out and learn some other sword techniques. We actually did cover some of the Nito Ryu techniques. It was in fact with two swords. Not easy to do, but it sure was a lot of fun. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2006, 09:33 PM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Please accept my apologies. I didn't mean to come off as rude or sarcastic. I forgot to note that I was going from memory, and I could have been wrong, myself. I also failed to take into account that tone is difficult to convey in text, an uncharacteristically newbie mistake. Again, I apologize. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th January 2026 - 10:54 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.