Shadiversity on the Chainsword's Realisticness

[The Unseen]

Or you could you know, use the flat side for a deflection parry.

As long as you keep the contact time super limited and not let the enemy blade bite in, you'd be fine.

 

But yeah, blade locks with chainswords don't work real well.

 

And I always assumed the flat panels on the side are just slightly thinner than the teeth are, but at scale of the model, wouldn't be visible anyway.

And teeth with visible thickness could still have a monomelecular edge, since it's a hook shaped blade.

So the actual splitting/cutting edge is stupid sharp.

[Volt]

As a swordsman myself, lol. Chainswords are a godawul design that make no sense in any context because chainsaws are specifically awful for cutting through sticky stuff like flesh. Even if you give a chainsaw some awfully big and sharp teeth and swing it at say, a pig, you will at best maim the poor beast and cause it to bleed out from the trauma. The chainsaw will swiftly stop clogging due to meat getting stuck in the chain, bringing the motor to a stop. Depending on the construction of the chainsword/saw in question you could even see the chain itself break from tension and send teeth flying into you. Chain anything are best used against dry targets like wood or metal specifically because they don't get as terribly stuck in the teeth. But Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Total fantasy, chainsaw would probably be useless after the first or second kill.

 

FFG even hanged a lampshade on this, where chainswords are objectively inferior to ritual combat blades astartes can get with some starting chapters in Deathwatch. I've always seen them as more a gimmick that makes more sense in the context of sawing through armor to allow a medic to get at vitals, or the chainfist which exists to cut through vehicles and bulkheads. But against soft targets like Orks? Terrible idea.

[Panzer]

Or you could you know, use the flat side for a deflection parry.

As long as you keep the contact time super limited and not let the enemy blade bite in, you'd be fine.

 

But yeah, blade locks with chainswords don't work real well.

 

And I always assumed the flat panels on the side are just slightly thinner than the teeth are, but at scale of the model, wouldn't be visible anyway.

And teeth with visible thickness could still have a monomelecular edge, since it's a hook shaped blade.

So the actual splitting/cutting edge is stupid sharp.

 

You don't block with the actual edge of the blade with real swords either. That's hollywood stuff. But with Chainswords when your opponent tries to parry you properly you could just twist your chainsword and easily break his guard by pulling his sword down and if both try to do that because both have chainswords it just all becomes a mess.

[MegaVolt87]

I see no actual blocks, more footwork, dodges, feints and counters if two Astartes are going at it with chainswords as actual techniques. 

[Panzer]

I see no actual blocks, more footwork, dodges, feints and counters if two Astartes are going at it with chainswords as actual techniques. 

 

That's not how realistic swordfighting works. You don't have contact to your opponents sword just to block. You keep contact to it to lead the strikes etc (at least in 1v1s). Blocking is what you do with shields and the cross guard (which chainswords are usually lacking as well btw). The whole fancy footwork, dodges, feints, and counters you are thinking about is for the most part hollywood swordfighting. Not saying that footwork, feints and counters aren't important but they are far less flashy than most people think when they think about swordfighting and having pretty much constant contact to your opponents sword with your own is on the one hand so you can set up those things but more importantly on the other hand so you can read your opponents moves and counter them in time.

 

I imagine the Chainsword is more comparable to a machete fighting style wise instead of the classic sword (hell you can't even really stab your opponent with most chainswords). So less useable for how you usually fight in 1v1s with the classic sword but instead more useable for slaughtering your opponent quickly before he can prepare to defend against it.

 

That being said, 40k is space fantasy and hollywood style fighting with big swings and dodging where you roll around and jump and whatnot is probably what we have to expect to happen most of the time when it comes to 1v1s. The question of whether it's 'realistic' or not is just pretty moot at that point I fear.

[MegaVolt87]

 

I see no actual blocks, more footwork, dodges, feints and counters if two Astartes are going at it with chainswords as actual techniques. 

 

That's not how realistic swordfighting works. You don't have contact to your opponents sword just to block. You keep contact to it to lead the strikes etc (at least in 1v1s). Blocking is what you do with shields and the cross guard (which chainswords are usually lacking as well btw). The whole fancy footwork, dodges, feints, and counters you are thinking about is for the most part hollywood swordfighting. Not saying that footwork, feints and counters aren't important but they are far less flashy than most people think when they think about swordfighting and having pretty much constant contact to your opponents sword with your own is on the one hand so you can set up those things but more importantly on the other hand so you can read your opponents moves and counter them in time.

 

I imagine the Chainsword is more comparable to a machete fighting style wise instead of the classic sword (hell you can't even really stab your opponent with most chainswords). So less useable for how you usually fight in 1v1s with the classic sword but instead more useable for slaughtering your opponent quickly before he can prepare to defend against it.

 

That being said, 40k is space fantasy and hollywood style fighting with big swings and dodging where you roll around and jump and whatnot is probably what we have to expect to happen most of the time when it comes to 1v1s. The question of whether it's 'realistic' or not is just pretty moot at that point I fear.

 

 

I get what you are saying, but these guys are super human with combat roids + stims injected into them by the armour, super swole bodies etc. Hollywood style sword fighting with chainswords like I described would be closer to reality, well for Astartes anyway. What we consider impossible as regular humans would probably be possible for a space marine, its their design and part of why they exist. 

[Panzer]

 

 

I see no actual blocks, more footwork, dodges, feints and counters if two Astartes are going at it with chainswords as actual techniques. 

 

That's not how realistic swordfighting works. You don't have contact to your opponents sword just to block. You keep contact to it to lead the strikes etc (at least in 1v1s). Blocking is what you do with shields and the cross guard (which chainswords are usually lacking as well btw). The whole fancy footwork, dodges, feints, and counters you are thinking about is for the most part hollywood swordfighting. Not saying that footwork, feints and counters aren't important but they are far less flashy than most people think when they think about swordfighting and having pretty much constant contact to your opponents sword with your own is on the one hand so you can set up those things but more importantly on the other hand so you can read your opponents moves and counter them in time.

 

I imagine the Chainsword is more comparable to a machete fighting style wise instead of the classic sword (hell you can't even really stab your opponent with most chainswords). So less useable for how you usually fight in 1v1s with the classic sword but instead more useable for slaughtering your opponent quickly before he can prepare to defend against it.

 

That being said, 40k is space fantasy and hollywood style fighting with big swings and dodging where you roll around and jump and whatnot is probably what we have to expect to happen most of the time when it comes to 1v1s. The question of whether it's 'realistic' or not is just pretty moot at that point I fear.

 

 

I get what you are saying, but these guys are super human with combat roids + stims injected into them by the armour, super swole bodies etc. Hollywood style sword fighting with chainswords like I described would be closer to reality, well for Astartes anyway. What we consider impossible as regular humans would probably be possible for a space marine, its their design and part of why they exist. 

 

 

It's not about possible or not, it's about smart or not and being a super soldier doesn't change those things. Especially when fighting against other super soldiers.

[Haywire]

I think it's also down to the psychological aspects of it. When the Astartes were first created and given chainswords, they were often used as shock troopers, no? The aim of the game wasn't just to destroy the enemy, but also to completely break their will in doing so. Not sure about you guys, but if a giant superhuman is bad enough. Worse still is if he has a weapon that doesn't even necessarily kill immediately, but also creates an absolute god-awful mess of my friend's viscera all over the place because, let us not forget, chainswords are -far- messier than other melee weapons out there. You're just just cutting into your opponent, you're splattering him/her all over your armour and all over the environment. That stuff is terrifying.

 

The practicality of the weapon itself doesn't come into it. It's meant as a weapon of intimidation. History is littered with intimidation weapons that aren't exactly the most practical.

[slitth]

True the chainsword would not be ideal for a quick clean kill.

But Astartes are not made for clean kills, there are made for war at its most terrible.

And war is not a nice neat dual, but a process of reducing the enemy's ability to fight.

I would guess a wound from a chain weapon would be really hard to treat on a battlefield.

 

As for the ability to block. I would expect an Astartes to doge a blow or use the forearms to deflect.

[FlamingDeth]

Sfpanzer, you're going to have to go into a bit more detail about what you mean by "classic sword," as there are tons of different swords out there that are all used differently. You mentioned that in "realistic swordfighting" you keep blade contact and use a shield or crossguard to block, but that isn't universal by a long shot. With point weapons (ex rapier, smallsword, estoc) you try not to use the crossguard/bellguard at all, and only use maintained blade contact in glides and binds. It's similar with a lot of single edged weapons, like sabers and katanas. The only weapons I can think of where you're going to want to have prolonged blade contact on a regular basis are double edged European weapons like longswords and arming swords.

 

Also, what historical weapons do isn't necessarily relevant to what future weapons do. Humanity figures out the best way to use whatever weapons it has on hand. Also, we're working on the assumption that it's chainsword vs chainsword, most of the time that doesn't look like what's happening, Astartes have quite an arsenal and can pick and choose weapons with different purposes based on what they're expecting to fight. I can see them taking the chainsword when they're expecting to primarily by butchering their way through traitor guardsmen, as the chainsword will probably cut through whatever the puny humans can defend themselves with, but if they're planning to fight Astartes then you bet they're probably going to want a power sword. Also, I'm not sure what your idea of "fancy footwork" is, but distance control is an integral part of EVERY form of swordsmanship and close combat in general.

 

EDIT: As a note, you don't "block" with most swords, you parry, and there's a big difference between the two. I see no problem with flat to flat parrying between two chainswords.

[Panzer]

I didn't really want to derail this thread even further since real sword fighting isn't really a 40k topic. 

[Gederas]

I'm just glad that this thread has gotten two pages of responses to be perfectly honest. The fact that a video from nerdy Australian who has a fetish for weapons and MACHICOLATIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONS did an analysis on the chainsword and got this many responses amuses me :lol:

[Panzer]

Well I'm subscribed to a channel on youtube that's almost purely about swordfighting so there definitely is interest in such things among the people. :D

[Frater Antodeniel]

So, i watched Shadiversity video (Great video on the subject by the way), and there are two point that he, and most peoples forgot about the "mechanic" of chainswords and Power-Sword/Axes...etc.

 

---------------------------------

 

First, regarding Chainsword, in regard of the chainsword casing problem (two slabs of thick plate on either side of a chain). The casing, depending of how thick it is, could allow the chainsword to grind trought whatever it encounter, because of a simple and effective fact, that ironically Shadiversity discussed about the Power weapons. I explain.

 

If the chainsword casing isn't very thick, then with enough Strenght (i mean, Astartes strenght), then the chainsword teeth would divide the material it penetrate, and the chainsword pushed by the Astartes strenght, force the chainsword to divide forcefully the material. So while the chainblade mechanic allow the blade to evade the "stuck" problem, the chainsword casing force the "stuck" problem to exist.

 

So, in the end, the Chainsword casing would slow the penetration speed that is granted by the chainblade, requiring more strenght to be put in the blow so that the blade can penetrate and divide the victim material, and the chainblade may end up stuck within the target because of the casing. (Thus, running a chainsword into a weak material such as flesh/bones...traitorous guardman...etc, is a good and effective idea, but it wouldn't be a great idea against something more solid.)

 

---------------------------------

 

Second, Power weapons are noted to possess a Disruptive Power Field. It is a very important thing that make all the difference.

 

A disruptive field would act more likely like the chainblade of a chainsword, but instead of being limited to a single line (aka the chainblade), the energy field would make this disruptive effect run the lenght of the blade like a wave, pushing any blocking material away like the chainblade do, but on a more global area. Think about the starwars lightsaber, for the lightsaber do not have edge, but all the blade is a severing part, the same would apply to the 40k power sword, with obviously a stronger distruptive effect created on the blade edges, but even the flat area of the 40k power weapons would sever maters, just with less strenght than the edges.

 

So, in the end, it would mean, that unlike what Shadiversity rightfully believed, a Powersword wouldn't remain stuck within the object it cut, simple because the Disruptive field running the lenght of the blade would continuously sever the molecular bond of whatever the power field encounter. To note that it only work as long as there is energy powering the power weapon, for without energy, it become a simple sword.

 

---------------------------------

 

So, in the end, Chainsword would have great effect against weak target (aka imperial guards, Ork flesh...etc), but for more heavily protected targets (aka Power Armoured ones) you would prefer a Powersword.

 

So, in the end, it quite reflect the game and fluff as we know it.

[helterskelter]

Real world battery powered 12 inch bar chainsaw is 2.5 kilos, chainsword would probably be 18 to 24 inch bar so maybe 5 kilos tops for a contemporary equivalent man portable chainsword, which i imagine a portion of us here would be able to lift and swing.

Unless you're wearing chainsaw gear to snarl it up, it's going to skid, bite, bounce and all manner of delightful things, so to put it into 40k perspectives when Swung, a space marine it wouldn't touch unless you got a bare headed dude round the chops, it'd tear chunks out of Orks/Guard/softer niddlywinks, anything thats got magic armour/bone armour i couldmt speculate, would probably make a mess in some wraithbone but not get to the squishy bits

[Bryan Blaire]

So I think we'd have to delve a lot farther into the materials science of 40K before we can even get to a "is the chainsword realistic" discussions...

 

:lol:

 

It's all space magic.

[Panzer]

Space fantasy with space magic and magical swords. Fits the bill. It works because it's supposed to work. It's not overly realistic because it requires too many elements that we don't know about today but may or may not work with future technology but that's fine, it's believable enough when you consider all the other crazy stuff that exists in the 40k universe. ^^

[Frater Antodeniel]

The difference between "Science Magic" and "Science" is only a matter of knowledge and the difference of knowledge.

 

If you were to travel in time, 2 or 3 millenia ago, just your common "futuristic" knowledge will make you some kind of wizard, prophet...etc. Not to mention if you are send with a smartphone that allow you to know the exact time, and that you possess a map....Remember that in 1990, 30 years ago, Internet was a far away realm, mobile phones were not accessible to most of humanity, that Smartphone wasn't even imaginated, nearly nobody cared for environment, Electric cars were a joke to the professionals of the sector...etc. So if all those thing happened in only 30 years, what will change in the next 30 years....

 

Not to mention that in the 40k Universe the level of technology vary greatly from one world to another.

 

In Dante from Guy Haley, Dante use a holo-projection device when fighting in a Hive-world (so quite technologicaly capable/advanced world) and yet, while having already watched the same kind of device in action, some of the Hive World refugees states that the projection from Dante Device is of a far higher quality. Plus, recently, i have noted that Warhammer 40k authors have started to extend the possibilities offered by Astartes Material/Technology. Now they are depicted a being able to order/access information throught their helmet only with a thought.

 

The 40k Universe is a futuristic universe, and our era of time proove that what we hold as impossible can become possible in the future. So Chainsword and Power weapons can be a thing...one day in the future. (And yet, the Astartes as advanced as they are technologically are still a step away from the Mechanicum tech-priest or the Custodes...)

[Panzer]

The difference between "Science Magic" and "Science" is only a matter of knowledge and the difference of knowledge.

 

 

And sometimes real magic in a universe where magic actually exists. ;)

[Frater Antodeniel]

 

The difference between "Science Magic" and "Science" is only a matter of knowledge and the difference of knowledge.

 

 

And sometimes real magic in a universe where magic actually exists.

 

 

In fact the very concept of "True Magic" and the existence of the "Warp" can be considered as prooved scientifically.

 

The very concept of Big Bang, the origin of the know Universe imply that if the Universe was at its origin a Perfect State Order where everything exist yet does not (aka "1"), it also imply that there is a force that distorded (warped^^) this state of perfect order, and it is Chaos (aka "0").

 

The Theory of the Big Bang proove that Chaos as a force exist. It is a force that Warp reality and force it to move, to expand. Order can be understood, Chaos not. The Universe is in expansion because Chaos provide the "fuel" for it (aka matter/energy).

 

The rules of the realm of Order (Also Know As the Universe) can be warped by True Magic. Yet as the forces of Order and Chaos are antagonistic forces, using one mean that the other will try to counter its effect. Not to note that taking power from the Chaos (a realm with no rules) can be more or less dangerous and always come at a price. True Magic exist, but those that masters it will not use it to simply become Billionaires, or Immortals. (The Soul is by definition Eternal, yet the wish to become Immortal mean that you remain forever trapped into one plane of existence, so the wish come at a cost, and is more considered as a Curse, unless you try to escape from something that you shouldn't have bargained with, and even in this case Immortality is linked to the mortality of your plane of existence. If the Universe end, your Immortality end with it.^^)

[Bryan Blaire]

You coming around to a point there, Antodeniel?

 

This stuff is fiction. The Warp is there in 40K, but it hasn’t been scientifically proven here in our time on our Earth. So it’s science fantasy/space magic to us.

 

If you want to speculate on the reality of Chaos and magic as they exist in 40K, go for it, but don’t try and couch them in “science that might be.”

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Trevak Dal]

I imagine that more realistic chainswords (using the idea that power weapons are relics and are rare), are basically mass produced power weapons, where a heavily reinforced chainsaw has a energy field ran over it to protect the chain blades and aid in cuttin

 

So, irl chainsaws are terrible weapons (for the victim and wielder) you get sprayed with bonechips and viscera, excrement and all manner of bodily fluids.

 

In the hands of power armored super soldiers with enhanced strength, durability and purpose built to get up close and smash things apart? Not as much an issue, their primary weapons and sidearms (Bolters and bolt pistols) make targets burst, so extra gore washes off.

[Panzer]

A chainsaw surrounded by a force field is how Chainfists are described so I doubt that's the case for regular Chainswords.

[MegaVolt87]

A chainsaw surrounded by a force field is how Chainfists are described so I doubt that's the case for regular Chainswords.

 

Except thats how some power axes are done. Look at the cataphractii power axes, those are chain bladed power weapons. A chainsword version could also exist also or be modeled ourselves with existing kits as a power sword.