What exactly powers a chain sword? Logically it will not work on its own, so does it use promethium or something of the sort? Or are their different types. Also how long can it last without refueling?
Chainswords
Imperator100
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
Joined
·
4,802 Posts
The modeled exhaust ports notwithstanding, most Imperial chainswords probably run on lasgun powerpacks (for humans) or plug into power armor (for Marines). Both would provide sufficient energy and be readily available.
As for the real-life workability of chainswords, I always thought the main issue would be inertia. Get a big part of the thing whirling really fast and you end up with a serious gyroscopic effect.
As for the real-life workability of chainswords, I always thought the main issue would be inertia. Get a big part of the thing whirling really fast and you end up with a serious gyroscopic effect.
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
Wow. Didn't even notice that last point. Very thoughtful.
Joined
·
8 Posts
Naturally,four rechargable AA batteries. You can buy them anywhere.
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
The other issue is modelling.. If they made the blade convincingly thin then bits would break off very easily.
Also, this being 40k I imagine the teeth are made of some kind of super-alloy.. The real suspension of disbelief moment for me is how you balance something with so many moving/vibrating parts.
Also, this being 40k I imagine the teeth are made of some kind of super-alloy.. The real suspension of disbelief moment for me is how you balance something with so many moving/vibrating parts.
Joined
·
8 Posts
Experience proves you need to rest it often against squishy enemy bodies so that your arm doesnt go all numb and tingly from struggling with it for too long. I also think that the most scientifically plausible method of powering a chainsword would be a very high capacitance capacitor (rechargeable from a marine's power armour as mentioned in a previous post) I agree that the fast revolving blades would make it very unwieldy to use, and also someone mentioned chainsword against chainsword fighting..that would result in both being flung away from each other when their rotating teeth meet,i believe?
Joined
·
3,683 Posts
I don't think chainsword is such an unplausible idea. After all, they do make hand-wielded, man-portable chainsaws capable of cutting through concrete and natural stone in Real Life (tm). Furthermore those thingies aren't some ultra-special gizmos but actually just normal chainsaws changed with different chain and water instead of oil for blade lubrication... And those things have been around for half a century now. I mean come on. If some government military now got the idea of making up a chainsaw close-combat weapon the result could be pretty near to the things in WH40K. Also, funny little detail: The kickback of the chainsaw is usually witnessed because the material being cut (wood) is fibrous. Tough, non-fibrous materials (like stone or metal) are much safer to cut and thus the usual, approved technique of cutting stone or concrete with chainsaw is plunge-cutting, by pushing the tip of the blade into the material... Like so:
![Image]()
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Try wielding that like a sword, most chainsaws needs to be held with both hands at different angles (in your picture, on top and behind). Very difficult to make an efficient one-handed sword weapon out of a chainsaw, especially one that can be used to duel with instead of simply as a broadsword.
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
I don't think they actually rev the chainsaw until it's made contact with the enemy. It'd be stupid to rev the chainsaw while you're holding it, it'd jump out of your hand.
The other thing I was thinking was that chainswords aren't actually wielded like swords. You can't thrust, parrying is retarded (what happens when two saw chains hit each other?) and you'd have to physically push the sword through instead of just swinging it (a lot of sword-based martial arts, like kendo, teach you to jerk the blade back just before contact so it doesn't get lodged in the person but still inflicts a fatal blow. You can't really do that with a chainsword, you'd want to get it lodged in someone). A chainsword in action would really look more like a hacking competition than a medieval swordfight.
The other thing I was thinking was that chainswords aren't actually wielded like swords. You can't thrust, parrying is retarded (what happens when two saw chains hit each other?) and you'd have to physically push the sword through instead of just swinging it (a lot of sword-based martial arts, like kendo, teach you to jerk the blade back just before contact so it doesn't get lodged in the person but still inflicts a fatal blow. You can't really do that with a chainsword, you'd want to get it lodged in someone). A chainsword in action would really look more like a hacking competition than a medieval swordfight.
OK you have that and the best armour we can make, and I'll have a 30mm autocannon, and you stand 500m away and run at me trying to get in close-combat. Yeah...
Reasons why close quarter fighting isn't huge swirling melee fights in our world:
1) Our weapons are far better than armour. The most expensive body-armours can only take a few hits from assult rifles and none can stand up to a .50 cal. A most people don't have the expensive stuff or any armour at all.
2) Our guns don't have a maximum range of 144ft. Even the effective range can be 900 - 1500ft.
3) From a distance of 72ft away a soldier isn't going to miss half the time, with half of those bullets not even wounding the guy.
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
Where'd you get those distances from?
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Presumably they're extrapolated from the game, which is silly..
A bolter is meant to be in every way superior to a conventional firearm and has a game range of 24". An Exitus rifle is supposedly the most perfect firearm ever built (and in the fluff is capable of reliably hitting targets from a good mile away with a vindicare operator) and the abseloute pinacle of ballistic engineering and it doesn't get much further in game. This should tell you everything you need to know about how simplified the game's idea of shooting is.
In fluff, Tyranids and Orks can overwhelm their opponents by simply fielding enough numbers and being resistant enough to fire to just run through it in a great horde, resulting in close combat. Necrons and Marines, in the fluff, can walk through devastating ammounts of fire without injury thanks to their heavy armour and toughened physique. Kroot, genestealers and the like use cover and ambushes to approach the enemy. I think that's every army which likes to use close combat covered.
A bolter is meant to be in every way superior to a conventional firearm and has a game range of 24". An Exitus rifle is supposedly the most perfect firearm ever built (and in the fluff is capable of reliably hitting targets from a good mile away with a vindicare operator) and the abseloute pinacle of ballistic engineering and it doesn't get much further in game. This should tell you everything you need to know about how simplified the game's idea of shooting is.
In fluff, Tyranids and Orks can overwhelm their opponents by simply fielding enough numbers and being resistant enough to fire to just run through it in a great horde, resulting in close combat. Necrons and Marines, in the fluff, can walk through devastating ammounts of fire without injury thanks to their heavy armour and toughened physique. Kroot, genestealers and the like use cover and ambushes to approach the enemy. I think that's every army which likes to use close combat covered.
Basing it on the game was a bit silly, but I think my overall point remains valid. In our reality there is no place for huge oversized close-combat weapons, due to guns being better than armour. Even in close-quarters fighting like a house, assult rifles and shotguns will beat a dude with a sword or knife. Theres a reason why soldiers no longer have swords, and theres a reason they don't get equipped with them for house fighting.
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
The point is, though, that Marines and their equivalents are mostly impervious to "our" level of firepower. Take a Terminator. He's more like Iron Man than an infantryman. He can take anti-tank missiles - 40k anti-tank missiles, which are presumably designed to crack stronger, more advanced tanks than ours - to the face and walk it off. And he's carrying a melee weapon that can punch straight through most battle tanks. He wants to get in melee; he can use his superhuman strength and speed to its greatest advantage at close range.
Which makes a lot of sense; the concept of a marine (not necessarily the USMC) is a soldier trained to fight at close range in cramped quarters while outnumbered, harkening back to their original role boarding enemy naval vessels. The Space Marines fit that perfectly. It's even explained in one of the HH novels that once body armour technology caught up to firearms and ground wars were made contingent on naval supremacy, the Emperor realised that the way to go was to reduce the reliance on firearms and invent a bunch of super-soldiers designed at a genetic level to fight at point-blank or melee range.
They shove a boarding torpedo full of these guys into a battle barge and suddenly "maximum range" becomes a totally redundant factor; you're worrying about how the hell to avoid getting your head punched off by the nine-foot-tall armoured guy who's practically immune to bullets.
Which makes a lot of sense; the concept of a marine (not necessarily the USMC) is a soldier trained to fight at close range in cramped quarters while outnumbered, harkening back to their original role boarding enemy naval vessels. The Space Marines fit that perfectly. It's even explained in one of the HH novels that once body armour technology caught up to firearms and ground wars were made contingent on naval supremacy, the Emperor realised that the way to go was to reduce the reliance on firearms and invent a bunch of super-soldiers designed at a genetic level to fight at point-blank or melee range.
They shove a boarding torpedo full of these guys into a battle barge and suddenly "maximum range" becomes a totally redundant factor; you're worrying about how the hell to avoid getting your head punched off by the nine-foot-tall armoured guy who's practically immune to bullets.
Joined
·
3,683 Posts
I didn't say that chainsaw would be a viable close combat weapon in modern warfare. I said if someone tried to make a chainsword with modern technology, it would probably be small enough to hand with one hand and have enough power to cut solid concrete. The reason why people don't use close-combat weapons in modern battlefield is... Oh wait, actually they do! Its just that with modern armor and ballistics one of the best possible close combat weapons is a pistol and modern armies quite regularly hand out pistol sidearms for backup weapons and close-quarter fighting.
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Another thing which isn't reflected in the rules is the sheer order of magnitude between strength 3 and strength 4 (and likewise with toughness, but that's not so relevant). Gamewise it tanslates into a little extra oomph in close combat, fluffwise marines can snap bones and crush skulls with ease. Even in Inquisitor (still abstracted, but less so) their strength score is generally double that of the maximum ammount humanly possible.
I'd pit a marine's fists, let alone a marine with a bladed weapon, against the damage done by a pistol round any day.
I'd pit a marine's fists, let alone a marine with a bladed weapon, against the damage done by a pistol round any day.
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
@winginson: If you think modern armies don't use close combat weapons, you've obviously never seen a knife or a bayonet. Rifles are also used in close combat at clubbing weapons. And many armies issue swords to officers, and they'd be more effective in a fight that is too close for rifle fire.
@poodle: The fluff does show that chainswords are used to duel, however. Look at the Ciaphas Cain series, many times he is praised as a master swordsman and duels with his chainsword. As for chainswords hitting, some novels (especially HH ones) describes chainswords hitting by saying teeth fly off when they do. Otherwise, I'd imagine that the teeth are strong enough to not break, and the motors simply push the chainswords apart fractionally in order for teeth to move past each other (which would make the weapon vibrate like hell, I know). For example, if you are pushing a wheelbarrow and it hits a bump it won't immediately go over, you push harder and it forces the wheelbarrow to move upwards and over the obstruction.
@poodle: The fluff does show that chainswords are used to duel, however. Look at the Ciaphas Cain series, many times he is praised as a master swordsman and duels with his chainsword. As for chainswords hitting, some novels (especially HH ones) describes chainswords hitting by saying teeth fly off when they do. Otherwise, I'd imagine that the teeth are strong enough to not break, and the motors simply push the chainswords apart fractionally in order for teeth to move past each other (which would make the weapon vibrate like hell, I know). For example, if you are pushing a wheelbarrow and it hits a bump it won't immediately go over, you push harder and it forces the wheelbarrow to move upwards and over the obstruction.
I didn't say soldiers don't have close-combat weapons, I just said swords and the like aren't used. Bayonets and such are vary situationaly and very rarely anything other than a weapon of last resort. My main point was more about why we don't have 40k stlye melees in real wars.
Joined
·
2,084 Posts
Technology goes in flows.
if firearms beat armour, then close combat is bad idea
if armour surpasses firearms, then close combat becomes a better idea
Someone invents the bow, and can kill a man from far away
someone invents the plate mail armour and becomes immune to arrows, to take him out you will need to stab him with your spear
someone invents the fire arm and plate mail cannot stand up to it, to the point where wearing the heavy plate makes you easier to kill
someone invents the kevlar jacket, basic firearms are not enough, you have 2 options - stab him in the face, or get a bigger gun
the Emperor creates a suit of armour that ignores most infantry level fire arms and everything else short of anti tank rounds, so shooting them becomes less attractive again, chop at their weak spots with swords might be your only chance, unfortunately the guy wearing it is super human, designed with close combat in mind. you best chance is to run..
if firearms beat armour, then close combat is bad idea
if armour surpasses firearms, then close combat becomes a better idea
Someone invents the bow, and can kill a man from far away
someone invents the plate mail armour and becomes immune to arrows, to take him out you will need to stab him with your spear
someone invents the fire arm and plate mail cannot stand up to it, to the point where wearing the heavy plate makes you easier to kill
someone invents the kevlar jacket, basic firearms are not enough, you have 2 options - stab him in the face, or get a bigger gun
the Emperor creates a suit of armour that ignores most infantry level fire arms and everything else short of anti tank rounds, so shooting them becomes less attractive again, chop at their weak spots with swords might be your only chance, unfortunately the guy wearing it is super human, designed with close combat in mind. you best chance is to run..
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
And then the Emperor invents jump packs.
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Bayonets are used more than you think, house fighting being one such example.
Another reason that close combat would be preferred with superior armour is that massed fire can still take an armoured person down, so getting into close combat where you are largely impervious to enemy attacks can negate the ranged danger.
Another reason that close combat would be preferred with superior armour is that massed fire can still take an armoured person down, so getting into close combat where you are largely impervious to enemy attacks can negate the ranged danger.
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
