PDA

View Full Version : Eldar helmets



Denise
06-08-2008, 01:21
I was just wondering, is there actually any kind of fluff reason to explain the eldar's weird helmets? It just seems pretty impractical to wander around with those huge oddly shaped helmet. I am pretty sure gw did it just to give them a different "style" than the other races but within the universe its just weird to me. Is it supposed to be decoration?

warpedpavilion
06-08-2008, 01:23
i remember reading something waaaaay back in the day (2nd edition, if not earlier) that the helmets contain extra comm gear, sensors, and the like... makes sense to me, so i never questioned it

afshinbb
06-08-2008, 01:23
think they are meant to protect them the foul things in the warp that want to eat thier souls. Slaneesh anyone?

warpedpavilion
06-08-2008, 01:24
naah, the soulstones take care of that

Felwether
06-08-2008, 01:28
I'd imagine it's a combination of protection, the housing of comms etc and pure decoration/status.
The helmets are what really set the different aspects apart and Exarchs have more ornate headgear than your average warrior.
Plus, Eldar use lightweight materials in their armour so the designs probably aren't that impractical at all.

warpedpavilion
06-08-2008, 01:33
plus, they could be like that for decoration

but tehy also do have a function... i know that in the 2nd edition codex it specifically said that reaper helmets had extra sensory apparatii (insinuating that there are some in there to begin with), and other aspect warriors utilize helmets in other ways (banshees, scorpions, etc)

Chimaera2000
06-08-2008, 01:34
I think that decoration is a big part of it. The Eldar codex mentions that mythology is huge in Eldar culture and that the each warrior Aspect is often styled after a mythological figure. Their helmets seem to be the main way of symbolizing this, serving as a source of strength (belief in a higher power) and a way of deindividuating themselves. In the same way that warriors in our cultures would wear masks or warpaint, the Eldar wear decorative helm to "(complete) their transformation into emotionless, faceless killers (Eldar Codex, p. 21)."

PondaNagura
06-08-2008, 01:53
originally...space elves
now, probably something to do with cultural reasons, and the slight shape of their heads that isn't represented well in the actual models. differing of aspects, craftworlds, etc.

Killgore
06-08-2008, 02:16
pointy hats make eldar distinctive from other humanoid races, most aspects and eldar models have some type of pointy hat, looks different from spacemarine yarr?

icegreentea
06-08-2008, 03:12
Its so when the ignorant fools aim for headshots, they hit the middle of the helmet. No fleshy bits there.

Denise
06-08-2008, 03:45
I really hope it isn't for decoration. I keep on picturing what it would be like to fight wearing one of those things and even if it was super light etc, it would be super awkward if you ever tried to go prone or peek around a corner etc. If its sensory equipment, they really need to find a better place to put it or something. In the Dark Eldar codex it says that one of the helmets like that has a gun in it which ALMOST validates the helmet but if I was actually in the 40k universe it would still seem like sacrificing a lot of maneuverability. I might just be focusing on a tiny little thing but it seems to me to be kind of like walking onto a battlefield with giant skis or something.

olmsted
06-08-2008, 04:55
i dont see how any of that makes sence. a slightly larger helmet wouldnt hinder anyone especially if its tight and doesnt move.

chaos0xomega
06-08-2008, 05:42
Wow, you guys aren't all to familiar with the older eldar fluff are you. Actually... it's pretty recent fluff to, I think it's mentioned in the current eldar codex....

ELDAR ARE CONEHEADS! Most of the artwork (check the 4th ed. book, it's clearer there with the Eldar and Dark Eldar section pics), and indeed the mini's don't represent this aspect of their physiology very well, but the eldar have enlongated skulls. The helmet probably exaggerates this feature slightly, but it's supposed to represent that.

Iuris
06-08-2008, 06:40
I wonder what you people would conclude from looking at a Prussian Pickelhaube ...

The eldar helmets are inspired by the ancient Greek ones. That's all.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hop2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Corinthian_helmet_Denda_Staatliche_Antikensa mmlungen_4330.jpg

The sharper shape helps against attacks made from above and a decorative plume is added. With the eldar, you add some techy bits (full face covering, gas tubes, additional horns and jewels, and that's it.

Also, the helmets aren't so big. ALL models have their heads and hands too big, it's a problem with all miniatures. Just because the mini has hands three times normal size doesn't mean the Eldar is supposed to have them oversized, too.

slaanghoul
06-08-2008, 07:18
GW never ever use the design rule of "Form vs. Function". It is really simple .. . Rule of Cool wins. GW only do it for the cool style. Once they like the style, then they add fluff to it. GW can state that it has comlink, xray vision, extra armor for the head, etc. . . blah blah blah .. . bottom line is .. .. rule of cool.

Please don't justify it and say that the helmet style/design actually work really well in combat. You run around in the thing in a war zone, you going to get stuck or caught on a tree branch or even break your neck!

Iuris
06-08-2008, 08:01
You can say rule of cool and stop thinking. Or, you can say, rule of physics, they got things wrong. And start finding some rational solutions, which make for a slightly different universe that is also a bit more reasonable.

I'd rather think a bit than just say "meh, rule of cool".

And think that psychological impact and cultural legacy are also practical concerns when it comes to psychology of the warrior. And remember that the greek had helmets just as tall and yet there were tree branches around at the time. And remember, that...

Poseidal
06-08-2008, 08:26
It's to keep all the hair in.

Denise
06-08-2008, 09:08
Now that I think about it, its deffinetly to keep the hair in - totally makes the most sense.

About the greek helms etc, those helmets are really much less pronounced than the eldar ones, even considering the fact that gw isn't into perfect proportions. I don't really think that they can be compared either because theoretically they are fighting in VERY different atmospheres. Almost nothing in the 40k universe fights like they are using guns, but technically making yourself smaller/being less colorfull is a major advantage whereas with the greeks being colorful and big is actually an advantage.

slaanghoul
06-08-2008, 09:42
You can say rule of cool and stop thinking. Or, you can say, rule of physics, they got things wrong. And start finding some rational solutions, which make for a slightly different universe that is also a bit more reasonable.

I'd rather think a bit than just say "meh, rule of cool".

And think that psychological impact and cultural legacy are also practical concerns when it comes to psychology of the warrior. And remember that the greek had helmets just as tall and yet there were tree branches around at the time. And remember, that...

And how come the Greeks don't where those cluncky helmet today? How come no modern army have stupid long helmet in battle unless it is for parade and such? Because back in the days of swords and spears, big scary helmet works. They don't run around looking for cover and such. They fight man to man and up close where if you look taller, you look tougher.

And yes the greeks do get hit with a tree branches with their tall helmet, that is one of the reason why they don't have it anymore. Improvement in 4000 years, is no big tall helmet!

I'm not even going to get into bright red out fit debate here, but one of the great advantage American had over the Brits in the American Revolution war was the Brits had bright red out fit. Not to mention their white leather harness across their chest to form an X mark the spot to aim. LOL

Brother Loki
06-08-2008, 10:56
But in the 41st millennium, warriors do fight with swords and spears, as well as the fearsome giant electric boxing glove. There's no use trying to apply 21st century combat logic to 41st millennium helmet design really, is there?

Iuris
06-08-2008, 11:22
Ahhh. You want a REAL 40k :)

Abaddon, shave your hair. That top knot is ridiculous. Throw away all the swords and shields, yes, you too, brother Azrael. Chapter banner? Why would you want to bring a banner to a modern battlefiels, we're not on parade, you silly Ancient. Techpriest, melt down that Leman Russ chassis and try again. Think "sloped armor". Techmarine? That Thunderhawk? One word: Aerodynamic. Troops, no more looking at your officer - either you've got the guts yourself or you don't. Mister penitent, get INSIDE the penitent engine, BEHIND the armor, not in front of it, thank you.

etc. etc. etc.

Mind you, it might not be a bad thing.

The Eldar have a specific issue: the death of an Eldar is less of a threat than his corruption. A soul in a spirit stone is just a matter of time, a corrupted soul is torment eternal. So, they have to cling tightly to the path. So, the dangerous activities must be performed in ceremonial masks. Thus, traditional spiky helmets.

Now, consider the following:
-except for plumes, most Eldar helmets are not all that tall. Take the guardian one - they're hardly any taller than a real IG helmet (the Eldar helmets are not taller - they are just thinner around the cheeks - look at the other helmets)
-plumes don't pose as much of a problem as they are flexible. They may catch, though
-the Eldar are noted as being particularly speedy and graceful. For an Eldar, avoiding branches could be much easier and less problematic than for a human.

I'm not saying it makes it really explained. It's just that it's explained enough. There are much more glaring inconsistencies elsewhere.

slaanghoul
06-08-2008, 11:32
But in the 41st millennium, warriors do fight with swords and spears, as well as the fearsome giant electric boxing glove. There's no use trying to apply 21st century combat logic to 41st millennium helmet design really, is there?

Its a game and I told you already that rule of cool wins everything. You think you would use a sword when you can shoot them? Who would use a sword really? You can't use any logic because it is not logical in any way shape or form. Rule of cool wins.

We all like 40k because of the cool factor and swords combat in a space age is cool. If 40k were for real, most if not all army would have neutral color and camo strips all over it. No spacemarine would ever have his helmet off and there wouldn't be any close combat with swords. almost everything will be shooting and most combat would be by air support with little ground fighting. You get the idea.

slaanghoul
06-08-2008, 11:39
Ahhh. You want a REAL 40k :)

Abaddon, shave your hair. That top knot is ridiculous. Throw away all the swords and shields, yes, you too, brother Azrael. Chapter banner? Why would you want to bring a banner to a modern battlefiels, we're not on parade, you silly Ancient. Techpriest, melt down that Leman Russ chassis and try again. Think "sloped armor". Techmarine? That Thunderhawk? One word: Aerodynamic. Troops, no more looking at your officer - either you've got the guts yourself or you don't. Mister penitent, get INSIDE the penitent engine, BEHIND the armor, not in front of it, thank you.

etc. etc. etc.

Mind you, it might not be a bad thing.

The Eldar have a specific issue: the death of an Eldar is less of a threat than his corruption. A soul in a spirit stone is just a matter of time, a corrupted soul is torment eternal. So, they have to cling tightly to the path. So, the dangerous activities must be performed in ceremonial masks. Thus, traditional spiky helmets.

Now, consider the following:
-except for plumes, most Eldar helmets are not all that tall. Take the guardian one - they're hardly any taller than a real IG helmet (the Eldar helmets are not taller - they are just thinner around the cheeks - look at the other helmets)
-plumes don't pose as much of a problem as they are flexible. They may catch, though
-the Eldar are noted as being particularly speedy and graceful. For an Eldar, avoiding branches could be much easier and less problematic than for a human.

I'm not saying it makes it really explained. It's just that it's explained enough. There are much more glaring inconsistencies elsewhere.

LOL funny.

ahh ha! Guess what, Guardian helm used to be so damn tall and too many of them got caught on the branches. . . so they made new ones with lower top :P

Try to justify Dark Eldar tall helmet with blades on the sides. Those guys are so spiky I don't know how they don't cut each other on that little Raider with 10 of them on it.

Poseidal
06-08-2008, 12:03
Try to justify Dark Eldar tall helmet with blades on the sides. Those guys are so spiky I don't know how they don't cut each other on that little Raider with 10 of them on it.
To be honest, they probably do cut each other...

icegreentea
06-08-2008, 16:05
Its a game and I told you already that rule of cool wins everything. You think you would use a sword when you can shoot them? Who would use a sword really? You can't use any logic because it is not logical in any way shape or form. Rule of cool wins.

We all like 40k because of the cool factor and swords combat in a space age is cool. If 40k were for real, most if not all army would have neutral color and camo strips all over it. No spacemarine would ever have his helmet off and there wouldn't be any close combat with swords. almost everything will be shooting and most combat would be by air support with little ground fighting. You get the idea.

It's possible for future war to not be completely dominated by air support. Mainly the fact that you need air supremacy to be able to dominate with air support all the time. So if both forces have relativity evenly matched air forces, air support becomes less certain, and less decisive overall (though still decisive in single engagements). There has to be ground forces to protect your airbases. So viola, you have ground warfare without the overwhelming dominance of airborne firepower. Mind you, this is only in certain cases.

slaanghoul
06-08-2008, 16:20
It's possible for future war to not be completely dominated by air support. Mainly the fact that you need air supremacy to be able to dominate with air support all the time. So if both forces have relativity evenly matched air forces, air support becomes less certain, and less decisive overall (though still decisive in single engagements). There has to be ground forces to protect your airbases. So viola, you have ground warfare without the overwhelming dominance of airborne firepower. Mind you, this is only in certain cases.



Heck yeah there are going to be ground warfare. . . . Galaxy is a big place. Some species might not even have air forces because they live underground or way deep in the sea. . . so you would need special troops.

However my main point is. . . 40k is a game and a fantasy fiction ... big time at that. Nobody in their right mind is going to be using hand to hand weapon as their main weapon in a shooting future (example, Assault troops such as Khorn Berzerkers, Eldar Scorpions, Banshies, etc.. . .) Those guys would be shoot to death or if they do get in to hand to hand, their pistols shot will be doing the main killing, not their axes and swords.

I can't think of any modern army that still use hack and slash weapon as their main weapon at all because a 9mm can do so much more.

icegreentea
06-08-2008, 17:45
Well, to be fair. If all the enemy had were dinky little .22 pistols and you had a full suit of class III or higher body armor (including ballistic mask or whatever), you COULD move into close range and engage in melee. No idea why you would do that, but you could. The technological and qualitative mismatch between a Space Marine and a few Guardsmen with lasrifles is somewhat similar to the mismatch above. The Marine COULD do it. No reason they should.

But honestly. Chainswords are cool. Thats why theres melee in 40k. (I'm not disagreeing with you, just nitpicking at this point). But having excepted that 40k is full of imaginary and impractical bull, you still have to be logical and practical within that framework (no matter how dumb it seems). Stories in which one instance of suspension of disbelief leads to discarding all logic and reason aren't really stories. Rule of cool is ok. But you have to at least come up with a nearly half-assed 'reason' for it.

Adra
06-08-2008, 18:18
It also makes em look taller. They probably have lifts in their shoes the cheeky gits.

Col. Tartleton
06-08-2008, 19:25
Let me think why a sword is of value... lets look at what your fighting against...

Orks: Backwards culture that uses hand to hand as a sign of supremacy. Whether or not you are shooting at them, they're going to try to beat you to death. Therefore as they attack in large numbers, using a blade to cut them apart is more efficient than shooting them when it won't kill them without several shots.

Tyranids: Alien animals that by and large outnumber you and want to fight in melee. Bullets run out, swords last as long as the man who can heft them.

Eldar: An arrogant race with quick reflexes who prefer melee to show off their mastery of the art of combat. If they have a sword and you have a sword you can duel them and win rather than shooting innacurately as they ninja into you.

Chaos Space Marines/Dark Eldar: Prefer knives and swords ect because they take longer to kill and the killer gets the satisfaction of the spray of blood whether or not its logical, they aren't logical killers.

Tau: Don't use melee, except when forced to do to the others stated above.

Imperium: Prefer guns, but do use melee out of necessity like the tau.

olmsted
06-08-2008, 19:51
umm.... wear exactly did yall read that hand to hand doesnt take place anymore? it wasnt that long ago that that hand to hand was quite common place. anyone remember world war 1? a mad dash into no mans land and into the enemy trenches?

heck if what was said is true would our men and women stil be issued combat knives which act as bayonets? theres a lot more hand to hand in mordern days then you would like to think

Mad Jack Deacon
06-08-2008, 20:20
I know exactly why the Eldar helmets are the way they are. I once asked a studio guy about the High Elves (which have similar headgear), and the studio philosopy is that the more powerful/high ranking you are in the High Elf army the bigger your hat.

They use the same philosophy with the Eldar.

chaos0xomega
07-08-2008, 00:09
Did nobody bother to read my post where I made it extremely clear that it is an extension of the Eldar cranial anatomy?

nightgant98c
07-08-2008, 00:16
I know exactly why the Eldar helmets are the way they are. I once asked a studio guy about the High Elves (which have similar headgear), and the studio philosopy is that the more powerful/high ranking you are in the High Elf army the bigger your hat.

They use the same philosophy with the Eldar.


So they based them on the catholic priesthood? No offense to any catholics here, but the Pope has a way bigger hat than your local priest.

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 02:08
umm.... wear exactly did yall read that hand to hand doesnt take place anymore? it wasnt that long ago that that hand to hand was quite common place. anyone remember world war 1? a mad dash into no mans land and into the enemy trenches?

heck if what was said is true would our men and women stil be issued combat knives which act as bayonets? theres a lot more hand to hand in mordern days then you would like to think

I didn't read it anywhere I just never use it in real life. Most of the people I know who have been in a war never use combat knife, if they have their side arm. WWI rifle fire one shot at a time in most cases and that was about 80 years ago! There are no more trenche warfare because the invention of tanks and air combat and automatic guns made trenches useless.

Must I get into detail discussion about combat knives and bayonets true usesage with you? Those thing are more of a last option such as out of Ammo or no time to reload when the enemy is in your face. There are very very few hand to hand combat in a modern army. The key word here is modern army. I'm not talking about some Mujahadien (sp) or Talaban because those guys are not modern army at all.

Most ppl who run out of ammo in a fight and have no where to go and trap, will surrender rather than take out their knife and do a mad dash at the enemy. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight buddy.

Koryphaus
07-08-2008, 02:21
Plus if you surrender, you're still alive, so there's the possibilty of rescue. You're draining the enemy of resources as they feed you and transport you away from the frontline.

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 02:29
Let me think why a sword is of value... lets look at what your fighting against...

Orks: Backwards culture that uses hand to hand as a sign of supremacy. Whether or not you are shooting at them, they're going to try to beat you to death. Therefore as they attack in large numbers, using a blade to cut them apart is more efficient than shooting them when it won't kill them without several shots.

Tyranids: Alien animals that by and large outnumber you and want to fight in melee. Bullets run out, swords last as long as the man who can heft them.

Eldar: An arrogant race with quick reflexes who prefer melee to show off their mastery of the art of combat. If they have a sword and you have a sword you can duel them and win rather than shooting innacurately as they ninja into you.

Chaos Space Marines/Dark Eldar: Prefer knives and swords ect because they take longer to kill and the killer gets the satisfaction of the spray of blood whether or not its logical, they aren't logical killers.

Tau: Don't use melee, except when forced to do to the others stated above.

Imperium: Prefer guns, but do use melee out of necessity like the tau.

Are you joking or are you being serious? lol

because if you are being serious, then everything you stated . .. . . a gun would do better. What do you mean. . . ork will beat you with their chopa so it is better to have a sword to fight them because your need muti rounds to bring one down. If it takes 5 stabe to the chest, then 5 shot to the chest is much better than try to get close to them beast.

If those Eldar are that good and graceful, they can do the same with guns. . ..kind of like matrax. you get the idea

screenmonkey
07-08-2008, 02:40
In the far future there is never enough ammo, and to simulate this I suggest you use the ammo roll rules in necromunda, then see how often you have to get into hand2hand.

CHOOBER SNIPES
07-08-2008, 03:18
REALISTICALLY there would be very very little use of knives and swords in future combat. On the other hand, we are playing a game with big green photosynthesizing fungus animals, blue crevasse-faced communists, cone-headed ninjas (half of them psychotic and emo), 9 ft tank armored infantry, 9 ft tank armored traitor infantry, space zombies, and bug like aliens that eat planets to make more. so..... u cant really play the old "realistic" card.

I guess terminators could go at it in close combat tho, i mean they are described as being as well armored as a tank hull (a tank in 40K as well), so ill charge a lasgun armed guardsmen any day since, seeing as lasguns are comparable in strength to autoguns which are comparable to our rifles, we know that it certainly wont go through my armor. guess only terminators would fight in cc, as ida just shot the guardsmen, but another terminator id need to cc to death..... sry bout the long post

EDIT: Oh and slaanghoul i think his point is that you wont run out of ammo with a sword. battling tyranids all day means u run out of ammo. i mean, you shoot down the first 3 hormagaunts, then you need something other than your fist if your anything but a space marine. you dont really have time to reload with so many more coming.

Starchild
07-08-2008, 03:53
Regarding the original post:

Jes Goodwin's first concept sketches for the Aspect Warriors (from January 1990) explain the utility of the helmets. Essentially most of the systems for Aspect armour are stored in the helmets and the backpacks. That includes targeting equipment, communication apparatus, rebreathers, and whatever else Aspect Warriors need their suits to do. (In the case of the Dark Reapers, the helmet vanes form part of a range-finding array.)

You have to remember also, to the Eldar war is an art form, so they like to look good fighting in extreme style. In this case, the tall helmets serve both aesthetic and practical functions.

Nazguire
07-08-2008, 05:06
If we go by the reasoning behind them for the WFB High Elves, then the Eldar have such large elongated helmets because of arrogance. They want you to know who will kill you next, or has killed you and big plumed helmets that shine the midday sun help with this.

chaos0xomega
07-08-2008, 06:01
I didn't read it anywhere I just never use it in real life. Most of the people I know who have been in a war never use combat knife, if they have their side arm. WWI rifle fire one shot at a time in most cases and that was about 80 years ago! There are no more trenche warfare because the invention of tanks and air combat and automatic guns made trenches useless.

Must I get into detail discussion about combat knives and bayonets true usesage with you? Those thing are more of a last option such as out of Ammo or no time to reload when the enemy is in your face. There are very very few hand to hand combat in a modern army. The key word here is modern army. I'm not talking about some Mujahadien (sp) or Talaban because those guys are not modern army at all.

Most ppl who run out of ammo in a fight and have no where to go and trap, will surrender rather than take out their knife and do a mad dash at the enemy. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight buddy.

As someone who has experience (through training) and has access to people with first-hand experience, I can tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Trenches are far from useless, US armed forces still train to operate in such conditions, as well as to engineer them, and they are still being used today for static fortifications. You're never going to see a 300-mile long trenchline extending along an entire front, at least I don't think you will, but you will see them used in many other, more limited instances.

Not only that, but automatic weaponry didn't make them useless, if anything they made them necessary. Likewise tanks didn't make them useless, in fact, I'd say most modern day tanks would probaby have a great deal of difficulty crossing a modern day trench without significant modification (let alone the fact that the undersides are heavily exposed and vulnerable, and trenches=minefields, as well as the opportunity to fire anti-armor weaponry from underneath, as both the soviets and germans discovered during the second world war), and air combat, while it does allow one to deploy a force behind enemy lines, trenches are rather well protected cs. an air strike.

As for knives and bayonets, they are hardly a "last resort when you're out of ammo." British units have performed Bayonet charges in both the Falklands War and the current war in Iraq, an American soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading a bayonet charge against a chinese MG position during the Korean War, troops from a Highlander Regiment performed a bayonet charge as a first reaction(instead of opening fire from their vehicles) to an ambush in Basra(though I may be wrong about location), and took out 30 enemy gunmen as well as captured about 15 more. Bayonet's are an effective form of aggressive offensive action, given the right circumstances.

And considering the Mujahideen and Taliban to not be modern army is laughable, and is probably the biggest mistake you will ever make. You are underestimating your opponent severely, that is one of the biggest mistakes you can ever make in modern warfare. Just because they lack much of the organization, discipline, training, and technology of many western state-sponsored organizations, does not make them any less effective as a fighting force. Performing a bayonet charge against them is no different to performing a bayonet charge against Argentine, Chinese, or former Iraqi military forces. They are armed with firearms(probably one of the most effective ones yet seen by any military force on the planet: the AK-47), and they want to kill you, and they know how to operate their weapon well enough. The only thing they are lacking is the training to operate together as a cohesive fighting force. Individually, they could be on par with any soldier in the best trained army in the world (and in many cases probably are), the only advantage that we have is that we can execute fireteam and squad level tactics far more effectively.

As for surrendering, not a valid option. It's actually illegal for a US service member to surrender. I imagine this is the case with many other militaries as well. As long as you have the means to resist, this includes something as simple as your bare fists and teeth, you are not to surrender. And if you don't have the means to resist, than it is your duty to avoid capture to the best of your ability. And if you are captured, you're supposed to do everything in your power to escape.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THE REASON FOR THE HELMETS IS BECAUSE ELDAR HEADS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ELONGATED AND SLOPING, I.E. 'CONEHEADS.' THIS IS NOT ME BEING AN ASS OR JUST JOKING AROUND, IT IS ACTUALLY AN ESTABLISHED PART OF THEIR FLUFF, THIS IS THEIR 'ALIEN' PHYSIOLOGY.

Wolfblade670
07-08-2008, 06:38
Listen to this man. He says smart things.

Iuris
07-08-2008, 07:08
AND ONCE AGAIN, THE REASON FOR THE HELMETS IS BECAUSE ELDAR HEADS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ELONGATED AND SLOPING, I.E. 'CONEHEADS.' THIS IS NOT ME BEING AN ASS OR JUST JOKING AROUND, IT IS ACTUALLY AN ESTABLISHED PART OF THEIR FLUFF, THIS IS THEIR 'ALIEN' PHYSIOLOGY.

Shhh, no need to shout. And the argument doesn't work. First, the elongation is at best slight, it can hardly be observed on any of the models or artwork. Second, even if the heads were elongated, the helmets are far taller than the elongation of the head would necessitate.

I still say cultural reasons are a sufficiently "half-assed" to cover it. The disadvantages exist, but are relatively minor and are explicable with "impractical, but not impossible".

As for hand to hand combat: people often foret that a sword is only as powerful as the man swinging it. The handgun is as powerful as its propellant charge. It is stronger. Wherever a bayonet charge has worked, a fire wildly charge would have worked as well, except at range. The only thing a bayonet charge has is its psychological effect.

As for fortifications: they work and are extremely valuable, even in modern times. Cover>Armor. Common military wisdom is that a fortified force requires three to one odds to assault. The disadantages are that the immobile fortifications allow for an easier concentration of forces, in other words, they allow "defeat in detail" type tactics.

Also, the problem is that most notable wars of today are waged in a highly asymettrical fashion - the supertech USA vs. a third world country. Of course this makes fortifications seem useless. However, take a look at what is giving the US trouble: urban warfare (combat where the city makes for instant fortifications), Afghani caves and similar. If the US supertechnology beats them, this is not a sign that fortifications are useless - it means that the fortifications used are not develop enough to counter the attacking technology.

Wolfblade670
07-08-2008, 07:23
Convential fortifications are useless when you're fighting an enemy whose aircraft are so advanced that they attain air superiority by annihilating the enemy's air force and air defence systems before they even know you're there. Remember the Medina line during the Gulf War? The U.S. Air Force and Navy turned the whole damn thing bass ackwards inside out, but were kind enough to leave a few bits for the U.S. Cavalry to play with.

When you're fighting an enemy with total air superiority and the capability to obliderate every known form of man made structure the last thing you want to do is sit still in your bunker.

Which is why, as you pointed out, no one with any brains is going to use fixed fortifications when fighting the United States. They are going to try to force their opponent into a situation where their greatest asset, their air superiority, is nigh useless. Hence why our current enemies are using caves (can't find 'em, can't kill 'em) or cities (carpet bombing doesn't really help the whole "hearts and minds" thing).

Damn...did I go OT or what?

Anyway, coneheads...

Iuris
07-08-2008, 08:42
Yeah, we are going off topic, but so far, it seems the discussion is interesting and suitably cool, so maybe we'll get away with it.

As I said, the current technological disparity between the US and their opponents works against fortifications. Although in Afghanistan, the caves did render bombing useless and the US had to develop new types of bombs to get anything done.

However, I say this is due to the disparity in tech levels, not the concept of fortifications themselves.

Imagine, oh, I don't know, a high tech laser air defence system. Something capable of incinerating any approaching ari launched missile before it impacts or something. I say that such a system that counters the technological disparity would soon make fortifications valuable again.

Oh, yeah almost forgot the most important thing: during the last wars, the attackers fought with their homelands completely safe. No fear of retaliatory strikes against the airports, the manufacturing facilities and similar. This allowed the US another advantage - they could afford to spend a lot of money on offensive devices.

Try all this in an american civil war scenario. Where both sides have Raptors and Abrams tanks. And you'll see that fortified positions can quickly have uses. Even ariplanes benefit from being close to the refueling points.

Adra
07-08-2008, 10:10
i still say its to make them taller. They like being nice and tall next to the lesser races so they feel big about themselves. I mean how greedy, eldar are pretty tall as it is do they really need the help? This is why i hate eldar...because they are too tall.....

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 10:42
As someone who has experience (through training) and has access to people with first-hand experience, I can tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Trenches are far from useless, US armed forces still train to operate in such conditions, as well as to engineer them, and they are still being used today for static fortifications. You're never going to see a 300-mile long trenchline extending along an entire front, at least I don't think you will, but you will see them used in many other, more limited instances.

Not only that, but automatic weaponry didn't make them useless, if anything they made them necessary. Likewise tanks didn't make them useless, in fact, I'd say most modern day tanks would probaby have a great deal of difficulty crossing a modern day trench without significant modification (let alone the fact that the undersides are heavily exposed and vulnerable, and trenches=minefields, as well as the opportunity to fire anti-armor weaponry from underneath, as both the soviets and germans discovered during the second world war), and air combat, while it does allow one to deploy a force behind enemy lines, trenches are rather well protected cs. an air strike.

As for knives and bayonets, they are hardly a "last resort when you're out of ammo." British units have performed Bayonet charges in both the Falklands War and the current war in Iraq, an American soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading a bayonet charge against a chinese MG position during the Korean War, troops from a Highlander Regiment performed a bayonet charge as a first reaction(instead of opening fire from their vehicles) to an ambush in Basra(though I may be wrong about location), and took out 30 enemy gunmen as well as captured about 15 more. Bayonet's are an effective form of aggressive offensive action, given the right circumstances.

And considering the Mujahideen and Taliban to not be modern army is laughable, and is probably the biggest mistake you will ever make. You are underestimating your opponent severely, that is one of the biggest mistakes you can ever make in modern warfare. Just because they lack much of the organization, discipline, training, and technology of many western state-sponsored organizations, does not make them any less effective as a fighting force. Performing a bayonet charge against them is no different to performing a bayonet charge against Argentine, Chinese, or former Iraqi military forces. They are armed with firearms(probably one of the most effective ones yet seen by any military force on the planet: the AK-47), and they want to kill you, and they know how to operate their weapon well enough. The only thing they are lacking is the training to operate together as a cohesive fighting force. Individually, they could be on par with any soldier in the best trained army in the world (and in many cases probably are), the only advantage that we have is that we can execute fireteam and squad level tactics far more effectively.

As for surrendering, not a valid option. It's actually illegal for a US service member to surrender. I imagine this is the case with many other militaries as well. As long as you have the means to resist, this includes something as simple as your bare fists and teeth, you are not to surrender. And if you don't have the means to resist, than it is your duty to avoid capture to the best of your ability. And if you are captured, you're supposed to do everything in your power to escape.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THE REASON FOR THE HELMETS IS BECAUSE ELDAR HEADS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ELONGATED AND SLOPING, I.E. 'CONEHEADS.' THIS IS NOT ME BEING AN ASS OR JUST JOKING AROUND, IT IS ACTUALLY AN ESTABLISHED PART OF THEIR FLUFF, THIS IS THEIR 'ALIEN' PHYSIOLOGY.

LOL, eveything you mentioned aboved is as you stated, depends on the circumstance. I wonder how many brits you mentioned die from that bayonet charge. They could have done a more effective and safer if they just charge and shoot at the same time. Why do you want to go stab the guy 10 yards away when you can shoot him. I don't want to explain to you what a sword vs. gun fight in details because Iuris explain really well.

As for all trenches, I wouldn't call a fortification a Trench warfare. Our modern technology have made those days long gone. You go ahead and dig 300 miles trench and have troops hind in it. All I can say is they are sitting ducks for missiles and bombs.

Now for the Tallaban and Mujahadine . .. I wouldn't call them modern army. I never said they are inferior troops. I just said that they are not modern. They beat the crap out of USSR and they are holding quite good vs. USA, but that is because this is a different kind of war.

Anyway, the point here is about helmet and yes tall helmet sucks. Looks cool, but in real world . . . it is overrated and stupid. Oh and please don't bring up swords vs. gun again . .. you can say the Zulu defeated the britz with their spears . . but if they have guns. . . they wouldn't have die 1000 to 1.

Iuris
07-08-2008, 11:45
Yay, someone finally got my name right on first try!

Now, re: fortifications. The smartest thing a soldier in the open with half an hour of time ahead of him is to dig himself some strong cover. Sandbags, and the more modern equivalents (those huge squares a construction engine simply fills up with sand, don't remember the name) still exist.

In the current technology balance, rifles beat body armor (no bulletproof vest really protects against the sharp rifle ammo, and even if it did, you still get broken ribs and bruises from getting hit), so all a soldier can hope for is something to hide behind. Even if only psychological (like hiding behind a car - the bullets WILL go though, but the enemy doesn't see you).

Poseidal
07-08-2008, 11:55
In the current technology balance, rifles beat body armor (no bulletproof vest really protects against the sharp rifle ammo, and even if it did, you still get broken ribs and bruises from getting hit), so all a soldier can hope for is something to hide behind. Even if only psychological (like hiding behind a car - the bullets WILL go though, but the enemy doesn't see you).
Actually, there currently is body armour that can stop rifle bullets. The more effective it is, however, the higher the penalty to the user in terms of its weight and bulk (not to mention heat build-up in high-temperature regions), so good armour has a negative effect on agility and endurance.

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 12:02
As someone who has experience (through training) and has access to people with first-hand experience, I can tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Trenches are far from useless, US armed forces still train to operate in such conditions, as well as to engineer them, and they are still being used today for static fortifications. You're never going to see a 300-mile long trenchline extending along an entire front, at least I don't think you will, but you will see them used in many other, more limited instances.

Not only that, but automatic weaponry didn't make them useless, if anything they made them necessary. Likewise tanks didn't make them useless, in fact, I'd say most modern day tanks would probaby have a great deal of difficulty crossing a modern day trench without significant modification (let alone the fact that the undersides are heavily exposed and vulnerable, and trenches=minefields, as well as the opportunity to fire anti-armor weaponry from underneath, as both the soviets and germans discovered during the second world war), and air combat, while it does allow one to deploy a force behind enemy lines, trenches are rather well protected cs. an air strike.

As for knives and bayonets, they are hardly a "last resort when you're out of ammo." British units have performed Bayonet charges in both the Falklands War and the current war in Iraq, an American soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading a bayonet charge against a chinese MG position during the Korean War, troops from a Highlander Regiment performed a bayonet charge as a first reaction(instead of opening fire from their vehicles) to an ambush in Basra(though I may be wrong about location), and took out 30 enemy gunmen as well as captured about 15 more. Bayonet's are an effective form of aggressive offensive action, given the right circumstances.

And considering the Mujahideen and Taliban to not be modern army is laughable, and is probably the biggest mistake you will ever make. You are underestimating your opponent severely, that is one of the biggest mistakes you can ever make in modern warfare. Just because they lack much of the organization, discipline, training, and technology of many western state-sponsored organizations, does not make them any less effective as a fighting force. Performing a bayonet charge against them is no different to performing a bayonet charge against Argentine, Chinese, or former Iraqi military forces. They are armed with firearms(probably one of the most effective ones yet seen by any military force on the planet: the AK-47), and they want to kill you, and they know how to operate their weapon well enough. The only thing they are lacking is the training to operate together as a cohesive fighting force. Individually, they could be on par with any soldier in the best trained army in the world (and in many cases probably are), the only advantage that we have is that we can execute fireteam and squad level tactics far more effectively.

As for surrendering, not a valid option. It's actually illegal for a US service member to surrender. I imagine this is the case with many other militaries as well. As long as you have the means to resist, this includes something as simple as your bare fists and teeth, you are not to surrender. And if you don't have the means to resist, than it is your duty to avoid capture to the best of your ability. And if you are captured, you're supposed to do everything in your power to escape.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THE REASON FOR THE HELMETS IS BECAUSE ELDAR HEADS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ELONGATED AND SLOPING, I.E. 'CONEHEADS.' THIS IS NOT ME BEING AN ASS OR JUST JOKING AROUND, IT IS ACTUALLY AN ESTABLISHED PART OF THEIR FLUFF, THIS IS THEIR 'ALIEN' PHYSIOLOGY.

Oh and the part about surrender, read my post again. Trap, out of ammo . . . . your only option is surrender or like I said .. . be stupid or very brave and run out with your combat knife and die a hero.

Seems to me that you stated almost the same thing that I've already said and twisted it a bit.

You must be joking about the conehead part. . . you never see a eldar model or a picture of them? Do they look like a cone head to you? Skinny head and long face. . yes, but nothing like a cone head. One of my Israel soldier buddy got long face like an Eldar. . . but I wouldn't call him a cone head.

Iuris
07-08-2008, 12:14
Actually, there currently is body armour that can stop rifle bullets. The more effective it is, however, the higher the penalty to the user in terms of its weight and bulk (not to mention heat build-up in high-temperature regions), so good armour has a negative effect on agility and endurance.

Class III and class IV, yes. The last time I looked, those were still too heavy for regular wear, and the ones that were light enough just stopped the bullet, but left injuries behind (insofar as I know, the effect of a bulletproof vest is the difference between "punctured body, exit cavity 10cm across, massive blood loss" and "lieing on the bround, stunned, facing a month of hospital while the ribs heal up" ) but I'll allow that it has been quite a while since I checked and they might have got better.

P.S. Hmmm, I see the wiki is already talking about nanomaterials...

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 12:24
Yay, someone finally got my name right on first try!

Now, re: fortifications. The smartest thing a soldier in the open with half an hour of time ahead of him is to dig himself some strong cover. Sandbags, and the more modern equivalents (those huge squares a construction engine simply fills up with sand, don't remember the name) still exist.

In the current technology balance, rifles beat body armor (no bulletproof vest really protects against the sharp rifle ammo, and even if it did, you still get broken ribs and bruises from getting hit), so all a soldier can hope for is something to hide behind. Even if only psychological (like hiding behind a car - the bullets WILL go though, but the enemy doesn't see you).

haha. I copy and paste your name. I would have just type Iris (haha)

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 12:29
Class III and class IV, yes. The last time I looked, those were still too heavy for regular wear, and the ones that were light enough just stopped the bullet, but left injuries behind (insofar as I know, the effect of a bulletproof vest is the difference between "punctured body, exit cavity 10cm across, massive blood loss" and "lieing on the bround, stunned, facing a month of hospital while the ribs heal up" ) but I'll allow that it has been quite a while since I checked and they might have got better.

P.S. Hmmm, I see the wiki is already talking about nanomaterials...

I don't know anything about body armor, but I have to ask. I remember reading or watching a doc. something about a new kind of body armor that is as thin as normal shirt jacket and light also, but the fiber tighten up and become very hard upon high speed impact such as bullets. Damn. . . maybe I saw a fiction movie about this and got it mixed up with reality. This must have been at least 2 years ago.

Iuris
07-08-2008, 12:54
Well, I'm no expert here, and it has been a while, so I may not be up to date. Still, the basics should still be the same.

First: bulletproof is not the same as stab proof.
Bulletproof vests are designed to disperse the impact of the bullet over a larger area and are usually made from layer upon layer of high strength fibres, kevlar being the most common. They offer little protection against a knife, though, so you get specialized stab vests and additional stab proof layers if needed.

Second: dispersing the impact of the bullet over a larger area (probably also over more time) means you still take the impact. Still, remember, the one firing the weapon does too, through the weapon's stock. Thus, even if the vest prevents penetration of the bullet, the impact will still knock your breath out, break bones and bruise tissue. Don't take this the wrong way, though - this is vital. After all, returning home with rattled nerves and bruises that keep you awake through the night is much better than returning home in a body bag.

Third: different classes exist. Stopping a handgun bullet (large caliber, blunt shape, less propellant = lower speed) is much easier than stopping a rifle bullet (small caliber, sharp shape, much greater speed). So you have classes of armor, from I to IV. Class III and IV are supposed to be effective against rifles. When I read up n the matters, there was much controvery about whether or not they really did, seems that by now, they do.

Fourth: nanotechnology is studied, and promises small miracles. Of course... the Jetsons predicted flying cars, and we still don't have them. Some predictions would make firearms obsolete... Still, give it a few years.

P.S. I'm more of an armor freak than a gun freak, so I may be a bit biased. But one thing I'll tell you from my airsoft experience: it's not the stronger gun or the thicker armor that wins - it's who sees the other guy first. Really. In real life, I'd sooner bet on the pistol carrying ambusher than a full class IV armored assault rifle carrying soldier that got ambushed.

Iuris
07-08-2008, 13:11
Re: the super vest: that's what the nanotech studying guys are promising. Exactly that. 1500 m/sec projectiles stopped by fabric thick armor etc etc etc. We have yet to see it, though.

BTW, those vests are amazingly heavy, you know? Especially if you have to carry them for a longer period of time. I put one on a while back, it sure was uncomfortable. Mind you, it was a tad small for my size. And they are not forever - the fibres can degrade over time.

Oh, also: body armor worn does not cover the whole body. A vest (with a tiny apron, perhaps, that covers the upper thighs) and helmet, and even then, you often lack protection on the sides. Trust me on this one: making 100% coverage armor is NOT simple. Example: you make armor for a full upper body. However, you will find out that the armpits cannot be both armored and allow the arm to go paralell with the body. You get two layers of armor and that's already quite a thickness. so, you have to cut out a bit that's left vulnerable.

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 13:18
Well, I'm no expert here, and it has been a while, so I may not be up to date. Still, the basics should still be the same.

First: bulletproof is not the same as stab proof.
Bulletproof vests are designed to disperse the impact of the bullet over a larger area and are usually made from layer upon layer of high strength fibres, kevlar being the most common. They offer little protection against a knife, though, so you get specialized stab vests and additional stab proof layers if needed.

Second: dispersing the impact of the bullet over a larger area (probably also over more time) means you still take the impact. Still, remember, the one firing the weapon does too, through the weapon's stock. Thus, even if the vest prevents penetration of the bullet, the impact will still knock your breath out, break bones and bruise tissue. Don't take this the wrong way, though - this is vital. After all, returning home with rattled nerves and bruises that keep you awake through the night is much better than returning home in a body bag.

Third: different classes exist. Stopping a handgun bullet (large caliber, blunt shape, less propellant = lower speed) is much easier than stopping a rifle bullet (small caliber, sharp shape, much greater speed). So you have classes of armor, from I to IV. Class III and IV are supposed to be effective against rifles. When I read up n the matters, there was much controvery about whether or not they really did, seems that by now, they do.

Fourth: nanotechnology is studied, and promises small miracles. Of course... the Jetsons predicted flying cars, and we still don't have them. Some predictions would make firearms obsolete... Still, give it a few years.

P.S. I'm more of an armor freak than a gun freak, so I may be a bit biased. But one thing I'll tell you from my airsoft experience: it's not the stronger gun or the thicker armor that wins - it's who sees the other guy first. Really. In real life, I'd sooner bet on the pistol carrying ambusher than a full class IV armored assault rifle carrying soldier that got ambushed.


What about arrows, would that count as stab or "bullet"?

I saw this on "Cops". Two robbers wearing heavy armor head - toes with assault rifle walking like Terminator(for real) shooting cops. There must be at least 10 -15 cops firing their pistols at them and they just keep walking. I mean, those robbers didn't even jerk from the shots (like Terminator walking vs. Guards lasguns). I think this went on for about 45 mins and the tow robbers just got tire and gave up(because they got no where to go, but jail) and killed them self. However, I remember he put the pistol to his head and fire. I would guess that at point blank, no armor can stop it.

What kind of armor can brush off cops gun like it was nothing? Not even a knock back or anything. It was almost like cops were shooting paintball gun at them.

Iuris
07-08-2008, 13:34
Re: arrow, well, I'd say it would be more akin to a blade. A sharp, edged arrowhead should be cutting the fibres, and I'd say the mass of an arrow would be rather closer to an impacting blade than a bullet. Bullets get most of their energy from their speed.

Re: invulnerable armor. While this sounds rather extreme, there are factors that would make this possible.

-police equipment is not battlefield equipment. A handgun or a submachine round, which is what we usually see in the hands of cops, are large calibre and armoring against those is much easier. After all, there are those politician vests that are vorn under a shirt. I was, however, focusing on the battlefield, where rifles rule supreme.

-a bullet's impact is equal to the impact the gun makes on the shooter's hand (which does not get harmed. Usually. Although shooting has dislocated shoulders). It's the question of in how much time and over how large an area it's distributed that makes for quite much of a difference. No bullet will knock you down on its own - but it can wreak a hell of a shock and you fall down on your own. I was once shot with an airsoft pellet (designed not to break skin, safe to shoot around provided glasses are worn) but it took me by such surprise that I fell down.

-lethality is not instant. You still have to bleed to death and so on, and many a soldier faced with a drug pumped enemy has been surprised how long it took for them to finally stop.

-targetting issues. many bullets could have missed. I have shot a handgun, and it's not easy. Much less if stressed. Shooting on a target range while relaxed is one thing, winded and with adrenaline pumping, it's a different matter.



P.S. Can you find a video? I tried a cops episode guide and couldn't find anything abour armor.

Poseidal
07-08-2008, 13:55
Another thing about pistols and accuracy: It's a lot easier to aim and stably fire something with a pistolgrip, shoulder stock and front grip than something with just a pistol grip.

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 14:45
Re: arrow, well, I'd say it would be more akin to a blade. A sharp, edged arrowhead should be cutting the fibres, and I'd say the mass of an arrow would be rather closer to an impacting blade than a bullet. Bullets get most of their energy from their speed.

Re: invulnerable armor. While this sounds rather extreme, there are factors that would make this possible.

-police equipment is not battlefield equipment. A handgun or a submachine round, which is what we usually see in the hands of cops, are large calibre and armoring against those is much easier. After all, there are those politician vests that are vorn under a shirt. I was, however, focusing on the battlefield, where rifles rule supreme.

-a bullet's impact is equal to the impact the gun makes on the shooter's hand (which does not get harmed. Usually. Although shooting has dislocated shoulders). It's the question of in how much time and over how large an area it's distributed that makes for quite much of a difference. No bullet will knock you down on its own - but it can wreak a hell of a shock and you fall down on your own. I was once shot with an airsoft pellet (designed not to break skin, safe to shoot around provided glasses are worn) but it took me by such surprise that I fell down.

-lethality is not instant. You still have to bleed to death and so on, and many a soldier faced with a drug pumped enemy has been surprised how long it took for them to finally stop.

-targetting issues. many bullets could have missed. I have shot a handgun, and it's not easy. Much less if stressed. Shooting on a target range while relaxed is one thing, winded and with adrenaline pumping, it's a different matter.



P.S. Can you find a video? I tried a cops episode guide and couldn't find anything abour armor.

i wouldn't even know where to search for that video. I saw it first time about 3 or 4 years ago, but I would see it comes up on different shows like cops alot. I must have see this video at least 3 times. I'll check utube if i can find it.

Oh, more info about the footage. The two robbers armor were dark blue and they look kind of like GW imperial Storm troopers with face mask and helmet. They were driving their getaway car and the cops shot their tires, so they went on foot and left their loot in the car. It must have happened in LA because it was very sunny and the cops worn black. I think the cops did hit them a few times because one of the robber finally went down from lost of blood and pain I think. I think it was (as you stated), broken ribs and bruises that got the best of them. But the other one, just gave up and killed himself.

Burnthem
07-08-2008, 14:50
wow, talk about going OT :D

Anyway, about those two robbers, they wore head to toe body armour, adequate enough to stop pistol rounds, which was why the Police quickly broke open a local gun shop and used rifles to take them down. It's quite a famous robbery actually, as it was what finally convinced the US Police that they needed something with more punch than a pistol IIRC.

Chaos Undecided
07-08-2008, 14:57
Seem to remember back when Eldar were first formed into a true army list including aspect warriors that their armour including the helmet had ritualistic as well as practical significance. By donning the full armour and finally the helm they became one with their war aspect and the influence of Khaine. Dimly remember one piece of flavour text speaking of how the aspect warriors vision turned red as if covered in blood upon putting on his/her helm. Of course this background was somewhat defeated by the recent Avenger plastics including a helmetless head but then this is going back many years so is probably forgotten by most anyway.

Well the ritualistic purpose can somewhat explain away the "strange" appearance of the helms but the general tall pointyness is more down to as has been mentioned Eldar are humanoid but taller, thinner and almost stretched in appearance compared to a human and tend towards more extravagent hairstyles than human warriors.

Burnthem
07-08-2008, 15:24
To be honest i dont see what they trouble is, Eldar helmets aren't that tall, nowhere near the height of thier fantasy counterparts, and remember we are talking about an alien species here, i get a bit fed up of people trying to apply human reasoning and motivation to a completely alien race. So what if they have curvy helmets? Do we complain about an Orks inability to eat due to the size of his teeth? No.

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 15:29
Sorry for OT, but I found the site that has this footage now. Check it out. it was hollywood 1997

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b3_1193372588&c=1

Burnthem
07-08-2008, 15:33
i managed to find it on YouTube, but there were some 'questionable' scenes for a PG rated forum.

EDIT - Post 1000!! WHOOO!!!!

Chaos Undecided
07-08-2008, 15:33
Very true, Eldar almost certainly find human designs dull and brutish (just like the humans themselves) Eldar consider all things an art form including warfare so their armour and gear will be stylised to suit their own tastes

Dakkagor
07-08-2008, 15:44
LOL, eveything you mentioned aboved is as you stated, depends on the circumstance. I wonder how many brits you mentioned die from that bayonet charge. They could have done a more effective and safer if they just charge and shoot at the same time. Why do you want to go stab the guy 10 yards away when you can shoot him.

Bullets don't go through walls or dirt, while a bayonet can be manouvered round the cover to stab the enemy directly. In room to room fighting having a bayonet to hand can be very useful, indeed in any urban environment close quarters fighting is to be expected. The bayonet charge is an effective weapon in the British army partly because we train for it, and partly because having thirty scotsman with sharp sticks bearing down on you is a verys cary experience. Gunfire is anonymous and instant. A bayonet says "I am perfectly willing to get close enough to stab you and watch you die"


As for all trenches, I wouldn't call a fortification a Trench warfare. Our modern technology have made those days long gone. You go ahead and dig 300 miles trench and have troops hind in it. All I can say is they are sitting ducks for missiles and bombs.

Troops in both Iraq wars, and the falklands, dug and used very effective tempory fixed positions in the lead up to offensives. This is because dirt is very good at stopping bullets and absorbing barrage weapons (mortars and field artillery). Using a missile on a squad of pukes in a trench is a total waste of time, mortars might work but you need to hit the trench, hitting anywhere round it would render it much less effective. Seriously, what do you think galvanised the creation of trenches on the western front? It was the artillery barrage and the machine gun.


Now for the Tallaban and Mujahadine . .. I wouldn't call them modern army. I never said they are inferior troops. I just said that they are not modern. They beat the crap out of USSR and they are holding quite good vs. USA, but that is because this is a different kind of war.

they are a modern army because they fight in the modern environment. They use different tactics and you can rebrand them as insurgents or terrorists or whatever, but they are a single cohesive fighting force with a chain of command and supply lines just like any other armed force in the world.


Anyway, the point here is about helmet and yes tall helmet sucks. Looks cool, but in real world . . . it is overrated and stupid. Oh and please don't bring up swords vs. gun again . .. you can say the Zulu defeated the britz with their spears . . but if they have guns. . . they wouldn't have die 1000 to 1.

Remember the terrain. The zulus where charging fixed defensive positions over flat ground with bugger all cover. If they had been fighting in an urban enviroment (somehow, hypothetically) the fight would have gone to the Zulus.

And who cares about Eldar helmets? They look good on a trophy rack, thats all thats really needed :skull:

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 16:05
Bullets don't go through walls or dirt, while a bayonet can be manouvered round the cover to stab the enemy directly. In room to room fighting having a bayonet to hand can be very useful, indeed in any urban environment close quarters fighting is to be expected. The bayonet charge is an effective weapon in the British army partly because we train for it, and partly because having thirty scotsman with sharp sticks bearing down on you is a verys cary experience. Gunfire is anonymous and instant. A bayonet says "I am perfectly willing to get close enough to stab you and watch you die"



Troops in both Iraq wars, and the falklands, dug and used very effective tempory fixed positions in the lead up to offensives. This is because dirt is very good at stopping bullets and absorbing barrage weapons (mortars and field artillery). Using a missile on a squad of pukes in a trench is a total waste of time, mortars might work but you need to hit the trench, hitting anywhere round it would render it much less effective. Seriously, what do you think galvanised the creation of trenches on the western front? It was the artillery barrage and the machine gun.



they are a modern army because they fight in the modern environment. They use different tactics and you can rebrand them as insurgents or terrorists or whatever, but they are a single cohesive fighting force with a chain of command and supply lines just like any other armed force in the world.



Remember the terrain. The zulus where charging fixed defensive positions over flat ground with bugger all cover. If they had been fighting in an urban enviroment (somehow, hypothetically) the fight would have gone to the Zulus.

And who cares about Eldar helmets? They look good on a trophy rack, thats all thats really needed :skull:

you win. next war go ahead and dig your trenches and armed your troops with bayoney and pretend we are fighting WW1 or WW2 style.

Iuris
07-08-2008, 16:21
Re: video I looked at the video. It's a composite, made extra dramatic. The only genuine footage is from the helicopter. Now, the number of shots the guys took is high, and their temporary survival of them is not all that unexpected. They were armored over at least their vital areas, and the firefight was at close range. However, in such a firefight, not all the bullets hit. After all, the guys were firing themselves, and they didn't hit 40 policemen, so this should remind us of misses.

Re: Trenches: if I had a platoon under my command and knew I would be attacked at this location, I'd start digging a trench. It offers increased survival chance against everything: enemy infantry, tanks, even aircraft (a near miss is no longer good enough for the plane). In other words: it's the second best thing to not being attacked at all.

P.S. interesting tidbit: most class III and IV protection involves solid plates carried in pockets on the vest, and most of those are designed to absorb the shot by shattering. One use only, in other words. But then - every vest will only take one shot in one place.

Another thing we may want to consider: Space marine power armor does not have to be immune to everything. Even if it only takes a few shots in the same place to penetrate, it's the time that it takes to do so that matters.

Mad Jack Deacon
07-08-2008, 16:27
Remember the terrain. The zulus where charging fixed defensive positions over flat ground with bugger all cover. If they had been fighting in an urban enviroment (somehow, hypothetically) the fight would have gone to the Zulus.

The flat terrain surrounding the mission station at Rourke's Drift is one reason for the high casualty numbers for the Zulu, but in reality it was the combination of British discipline under fire combined with their superior rifle (the Martini-Henry), and the efforts by the supply soldiers to keep the soldiers well supplied with ammunition. The Zulu were equipped with weapons that were either hunting rifles or combat rifles that were 20 to 30 years out of date. And historians have discounted the fact that the Zulu would've stripped Martini-Henry rifles from the dead British the day before. The damage to the mission station would've been much greater if the Zulu would've been using modern (at the time) rifles.

Another reason for the British victory is their discipline once having closed with the enemy. The men of the 24th fixed bayonets and defended the outer walls of the mission station. When the Zulu attempted to spear or stab British soldiers over the wall, they found that a British bayonet lodged in their throat or stomach was neither a comfortable nor heroic way to die.

When the hospital was set on fire by the Zulu, Private Alfred Henry Hook successfully fended off the Zulu with a bayonet as the injured were evacutated through a hole hacked in the wall.

And like it was mentioned above, getting shot is scary. Getting charged by a well-trained and disciplined group of ugly warriors (read: Scotsmen) who are choosing not to shoot you and are choosing to impale you on about of foot of sharpened steel is f'in terrifing. And that terror is all about freezing the enemy in place just long enough to win.

PondaNagura
07-08-2008, 16:53
i dunno the guy from the video had a gun, yet he still hunkered down between two trucks, using them like, i don't remember what they're called, oh yeah a trench.
also he didn't seem to methodically cross the open street firing from the hip as he went, because firing from the hip in a combat situation is not only intelligent but easy!

and like Chaos0xomega and i stated the models are ill-represented of the conical heads an eldar has, yet there are images of their pointedness on pp 5, 29, 38 of the eldar dex. and if you compare p 50 of eldar dex to picture of eldar from the 4th ed rulebook 140/144 you can see the elongated skulls.
if only slight, they are still elongated foreheads with a shallow pointy top...not so much the coneheads invisioned from old SNL.

Keichi246
07-08-2008, 19:51
OT: It was the North Hollywood Shootout. Link to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

~~~
On topic:
I blame alien sensibilities.

slaanghoul
07-08-2008, 20:35
i dunno the guy from the video had a gun, yet he still hunkered down between two trucks, using them like, i don't remember what they're called, oh yeah a trench.
also he didn't seem to methodically cross the open street firing from the hip as he went, because firing from the hip in a combat situation is not only intelligent but easy!

and like Chaos0xomega and i stated the models are ill-represented of the conical heads an eldar has, yet there are images of their pointedness on pp 5, 29, 38 of the eldar dex. and if you compare p 50 of eldar dex to picture of eldar from the 4th ed rulebook 140/144 you can see the elongated skulls.
if only slight, they are still elongated foreheads with a shallow pointy top...not so much the coneheads invisioned from old SNL.

i find it really funny how you make up your own words and twist the truth.

hinding behind a truck is not a trench. . . it is a cover. a Trench is something you dig from the ground. If you build a wall, then you have a wall or a fort if it has entrance and a top with heavy protection.. . it is not a trench. Also. . .. i'm sick of people playing with my original point. I say TRENCH WARFARE .. . WARFARE is the key word here. Trench warfare just doesn't work in modern combat anymore. A Trench and A fox hole, etc. . can work because it is not a Trench warfare. When you dig fox holes and make some trenches to defend your fort. . .it is not a trench warfare. That is just defending your position a little better. Trench warfare. . . is like WW1 where you have miles and miles of trenches because back then they don't have Bombers and fighters that can carpet bomb the crap out of you. Oh and modern is like 2000's and not WW1 and WW2. Some of you guys keep bring up sample of bayonet and trenches usefulness from WW1.


And your second point about elongated skull, that is what it is . .. elongated skull. Skinny face or skinny head. . . very very human to me. It is still not a cone head.. . oops i just reread your post. . . looks like we agree on this one.

Burnthem
07-08-2008, 20:58
hahaha, this thread has gone so far off topic its unreal :rolleyes:

Bayonets can and still manage to have thier uses, they will not win wars on thier own, but can help. Thats all there is to it, plase stop all this childish bickering and either get back on topic or PM a Mod to close this thread.

PondaNagura
07-08-2008, 20:59
i think what people forget is that close combat tends to be limited to special situations [urban warfare, close quarter fights, infiltration/assassination] which is at best a last resort...40k however is the proverbial 'last resort' scenario.

they don't use diplomatic situations, they perpetually throw themselves into harms way, where they are required to use any and all means to get the job done. usually sacrificing themselves, with ill-equipped resources, thus all the HtH. also having limited knowledge on how your field deceives work, and believing them to be possessed by some form of spirit encourages the regressed battlefield behaviors.

also who'se to say that the close combat doesn't include small arms/point blank fire, it's kind of why a bolt pistol grants an extra attack; not just pistol whipping but a blank shot to the face.

chaos0xomega
07-08-2008, 21:11
Shhh, no need to shout. And the argument doesn't work. First, the elongation is at best slight, it can hardly be observed on any of the models or artwork. Second, even if the heads were elongated, the helmets are far taller than the elongation of the head would necessitate.


Sorry, just getting annoyed that people keep throwing out random reasons when the real one is quite obvious. Yes the elongation is slight, but it's most likely been exaggerated by the Eldar (they are artists after all) as a form of art.


Now, re: fortifications. The smartest thing a soldier in the open with half an hour of time ahead of him is to dig himself some strong cover. Sandbags, and the more modern equivalents (those huge squares a construction engine simply fills up with sand, don't remember the name) still exist.

I pesonally think it's a better idea to design cover to be hidden rather than strong. I had the opportunity to run OpFor in a US Army training exercise. They broke us up into groups of 2 or 3 w/ an Army guide and sent us into the woods 3-4 hours in advance of a simulated patrol. We were told to make cover for ourselves, set up ambushes, etc. Do whatever we want, as long as it messes up the patrol and forces the squad/platoon lead (varying size patrols were going out) to think on his feet. We ran the same thing against different groups about 3 times that day. The first time around we went for hard cover and fortifications(we constructed some walls from rock and felled trees, and made a smallish bunker with a tarp for a roof, that resulted in a rather static firefight. Afterwards we dismantled that and just made damn fine hiding places out of leaves, dirt, twigs, and tree branches covered in leaves. We buried ourself in leaves and applied face camo to complete the look. The 2 times we ran the sim's with cover intending to conceal as opposed to defend, we basically had them right on top of us, within 10 feet, and they still couldn't pinpoint our location. 4 of us(including the Army guide) were able to thin down groups of about 25 to to a single digit number.

In fact, another group that a friend of mine was running was made up of 2 Marines and an Airmen(tied up as a hostage in the middle of a clearing). Before the first group came through the Battalion's colonel started talking to the airmen asking him where the Marine's were hiding, not realizing that his foot was placed about 3 inches away from one of their faces, and that the other one was standing next to a tree about 15 feet away.


Oh and the part about surrender, read my post again. Trap, out of ammo . . . . your only option is surrender or like I said .. . be stupid or very brave and run out with your combat knife and die a hero.

You're expected to run out with your combat knife and die a hero...


You must be joking about the conehead part. . . you never see a eldar model or a picture of them? Do they look like a cone head to you? Skinny head and long face. . yes, but nothing like a cone head. One of my Israel soldier buddy got long face like an Eldar. . . but I wouldn't call him a cone head.

Dig deeper into the Eldar fluff. I'm not joking.


don't know anything about body armor, but I have to ask. I remember reading or watching a doc. something about a new kind of body armor that is as thin as normal shirt jacket and light also, but the fiber tighten up and become very hard upon high speed impact such as bullets. Damn. . . maybe I saw a fiction movie about this and got it mixed up with reality. This must have been at least 2 years ago.

Dragonskin?


They offer little protection against a knife, though, so you get specialized stab vests and additional stab proof layers if needed.


Indeed. Modern day flak armor and other bulletproof vests/jackets provide little in the way of protection against a knife. Field testing has shown that modern bayonets and combat knives go straight through them with little trouble.



Oh, also: body armor worn does not cover the whole body. A vest (with a tiny apron, perhaps, that covers the upper thighs) and helmet, and even then, you often lack protection on the sides. Trust me on this one: making 100% coverage armor is NOT simple. Example: you make armor for a full upper body. However, you will find out that the armpits cannot be both armored and allow the arm to go paralell with the body. You get two layers of armor and that's already quite a thickness. so, you have to cut out a bit that's left vulnerable.

The idea of modern body armor isn't necessarily to protect you from taking a hit, it's to protect your vital organs from being lost. You might lose an arm, but at the very least you're still alive, and with the advances in prosthetic technology, they expect to be able to bring amputees back into the field sometime soon.



What about arrows, would that count as stab or "bullet"?

I saw this on "Cops". Two robbers wearing heavy armor head - toes with assault rifle walking like Terminator(for real) shooting cops. There must be at least 10 -15 cops firing their pistols at them and they just keep walking. I mean, those robbers didn't even jerk from the shots (like Terminator walking vs. Guards lasguns). I think this went on for about 45 mins and the tow robbers just got tire and gave up(because they got no where to go, but jail) and killed them self. However, I remember he put the pistol to his head and fire. I would guess that at point blank, no armor can stop it.

What kind of armor can brush off cops gun like it was nothing? Not even a knock back or anything. It was almost like cops were shooting paintball gun at them.

Bomb Squad armor. It's like the modern day equivalent of Terminator armor. It's so heavy that even members of the bomb squad, who are trained to wear it, have about 30 mins of action in it before they pass out from exhaustion.


you win. next war go ahead and dig your trenches and armed your troops with bayoney and pretend we are fighting WW1 or WW2 style.

Stop being so stubborn and listen. We're telling you you're wrong, because we know you're wrong. Even with Air Superiority, Trenches are still effective. Trenches are narrow, so even getting a bomb into them is a challenge in and of itself, then there is the fact that they are deep, so merely landing one next to it means that you're not going to cause any casualties unless someone is up on an elevated position of somesort and gets their head blown off, then there is the fact that trenchs have dirt and wood walls which absorb shrapnel rather than allowing ricochet, then there is the fact that trenches are built in a zigzag/cogtooth pattern, so even if you do somehow land an explosive inside of one, it's threat range is severely limited. A bomb with a 20m/60ft kill-radius is reduced to a possible kill area maybe 5 feet wide by 15 feet long. Then there is the fact that in order to assault an entrenchment, you have to get into it.Good luck doing that if all your troops have fixed bayonets and are spearing your troops as they attempt to jump into the fortifications. It really is an effective tactic. There is a reason why they've been used in every conflict since World War 1. Yes, even in Vietnam we used trenches.

There is also the fact of the matter that World War 2 is often regarded as the first (and in some circles the last) modern war.


Trench warfare. . . is like WW1 where you have miles and miles of trenches because back then they don't have Bombers and fighters that can carpet bomb the crap out of you. Oh and modern is like 2000's and not WW1 and WW2. Some of you guys keep bring up sample of bayonet and trenches usefulness from WW1.

Carpet bombing will do very little vs. a trenchline, as the German Spring Offensive discovered. They didn't carpet bomb, they used a heavy artillery barrage (the largest ever IIRC), and the effect achieved was the same. The only thing it did was churn up dirt. Yes it caused casualties, but you would be surprised as to how few.

The reason we won't see trench warfare isn't because of any of the reasons you stated, it's because of speed. Modern militaries move a lot faster than they did back in 1914 and and 1939. There simply wouldn't be enough time to dig an extensive network of trench fortifications. Add to the equation airdrop capability, special forces deployments, and the objective of modern warfare is to sever the head and let the body bleed out, means that even if you do dig an extensive trenchline, it'll be bypassed in one way or another and the enemy leadership neutralized as quickly as possible, irregardless of ground based defenses. However, if enemy airpower is neutralized, it will become a viable tactic. If your opponent no longer has the ability to fly over and conduct air drops (or strategic bombing campaigns against your industry behind your lines), then trenches are probably the way to go. Your opponent will have a hell of a time entrenching in the face of your guns on a modern battlefield. You could theoretically fight and win an entire war from within a trench (if something like the above-mentioned anti-air laser system was constructed and anything flying over was instantaneously destroyed).

icegreentea
07-08-2008, 22:29
Bullets don't go through walls or dirt, while a bayonet can be manouvered round the cover to stab the enemy directly. In room to room fighting having a bayonet to hand can be very useful, indeed in any urban environment close quarters fighting is to be expected. The bayonet charge is an effective weapon in the British army partly because we train for it, and partly because having thirty scotsman with sharp sticks bearing down on you is a verys cary experience. Gunfire is anonymous and instant. A bayonet says "I am perfectly willing to get close enough to stab you and watch you die"


Bayonets are not that useful in room to room fighting. You're gun is now 6 inches longer. Current thinking (and experience) in room to room fighting is you want the shortest weapon possible so you can maneuver it as quickly and as easily as possible. Hence why carbines are favored over full length rifles.

This also brings up the issue of over penetration. If your walls are made out of brick and concrete, bullets will not travel through them. If your walls are made out of plywood and insulation (ie, non structural interior walls), then your bullets will travel through walls. Bayonet has its use, but its not room to room fighting.

As for fixed fortifications. It can be done. First Gulf War may have ended ridiculously badly if we didn't have ridiculous air supremacy. The Iraqis had a massive system of fixed fortifications waiting. Except by the time the attack started, they were so demoralized and depleted, it went really well.

Tanks do not 'instant pwn' fixed fortifications. You build a well designed line with air defense, support, MINES, and well trained soldiers, and you can make any armor formation strongly think about trying to go around. MINES are scary as crap. No one wants to drive across a minefield.

chaos0xomega
08-08-2008, 00:59
Not only that, but modern tanks(well the Abrams anyway, I haven't really looked into Leapards and what not) can't cross wider trenchlines, short ones and their fine, but trenches more than half of their length in width are impossible, the tank will go nose-first into the trench (unless you get some serious speed, and even then I don't think it's possible) and get stuck. Modern tanks don't have tread-designs that would allow them to get up the other side.

PondaNagura
08-08-2008, 01:12
isnt that how 1 of the 2 abrams that got screwed in the gulf war suffered damage, because the crew drove it into a ditch?

Col. Tartleton
08-08-2008, 03:01
Gulf war was so win... 1 of 2 tanks taken out by a trench. God Bless overwhelming force. Didn't we have more friendly killed Abrams than enemy killed ones? Cause I think we did in the current Iraq war (not the peacekeeping.)

chaos0xomega
08-08-2008, 03:25
I don't know about that, but I do know that England got a tank-ace out of the deal(during the first Gulf War). Look up the Hammerbeck Challenger (IIRC that was the "nickname" of the event). I'd provide a link, but my google-fu is weak. I can't find the story, though I can find mention of the guy and his Brigade all over the place. Gist of the story command tank comms go down, lone ank engages a double digit number of Iraqi tanks (T-72's?) and comes out on top.

slaanghoul
08-08-2008, 05:58
Sorry, just getting annoyed that people keep throwing out random reasons when the real one is quite obvious. Yes the elongation is slight, but it's most likely been exaggerated by the Eldar (they are artists after all) as a form of art.



I pesonally think it's a better idea to design cover to be hidden rather than strong. I had the opportunity to run OpFor in a US Army training exercise. They broke us up into groups of 2 or 3 w/ an Army guide and sent us into the woods 3-4 hours in advance of a simulated patrol. We were told to make cover for ourselves, set up ambushes, etc. Do whatever we want, as long as it messes up the patrol and forces the squad/platoon lead (varying size patrols were going out) to think on his feet. We ran the same thing against different groups about 3 times that day. The first time around we went for hard cover and fortifications(we constructed some walls from rock and felled trees, and made a smallish bunker with a tarp for a roof, that resulted in a rather static firefight. Afterwards we dismantled that and just made damn fine hiding places out of leaves, dirt, twigs, and tree branches covered in leaves. We buried ourself in leaves and applied face camo to complete the look. The 2 times we ran the sim's with cover intending to conceal as opposed to defend, we basically had them right on top of us, within 10 feet, and they still couldn't pinpoint our location. 4 of us(including the Army guide) were able to thin down groups of about 25 to to a single digit number.

In fact, another group that a friend of mine was running was made up of 2 Marines and an Airmen(tied up as a hostage in the middle of a clearing). Before the first group came through the Battalion's colonel started talking to the airmen asking him where the Marine's were hiding, not realizing that his foot was placed about 3 inches away from one of their faces, and that the other one was standing next to a tree about 15 feet away.



You're expected to run out with your combat knife and die a hero...



Dig deeper into the Eldar fluff. I'm not joking.



Dragonskin?



Indeed. Modern day flak armor and other bulletproof vests/jackets provide little in the way of protection against a knife. Field testing has shown that modern bayonets and combat knives go straight through them with little trouble.



The idea of modern body armor isn't necessarily to protect you from taking a hit, it's to protect your vital organs from being lost. You might lose an arm, but at the very least you're still alive, and with the advances in prosthetic technology, they expect to be able to bring amputees back into the field sometime soon.



Bomb Squad armor. It's like the modern day equivalent of Terminator armor. It's so heavy that even members of the bomb squad, who are trained to wear it, have about 30 mins of action in it before they pass out from exhaustion.



Stop being so stubborn and listen. We're telling you you're wrong, because we know you're wrong. Even with Air Superiority, Trenches are still effective. Trenches are narrow, so even getting a bomb into them is a challenge in and of itself, then there is the fact that they are deep, so merely landing one next to it means that you're not going to cause any casualties unless someone is up on an elevated position of somesort and gets their head blown off, then there is the fact that trenchs have dirt and wood walls which absorb shrapnel rather than allowing ricochet, then there is the fact that trenches are built in a zigzag/cogtooth pattern, so even if you do somehow land an explosive inside of one, it's threat range is severely limited. A bomb with a 20m/60ft kill-radius is reduced to a possible kill area maybe 5 feet wide by 15 feet long. Then there is the fact that in order to assault an entrenchment, you have to get into it.Good luck doing that if all your troops have fixed bayonets and are spearing your troops as they attempt to jump into the fortifications. It really is an effective tactic. There is a reason why they've been used in every conflict since World War 1. Yes, even in Vietnam we used trenches.

There is also the fact of the matter that World War 2 is often regarded as the first (and in some circles the last) modern war.



Carpet bombing will do very little vs. a trenchline, as the German Spring Offensive discovered. They didn't carpet bomb, they used a heavy artillery barrage (the largest ever IIRC), and the effect achieved was the same. The only thing it did was churn up dirt. Yes it caused casualties, but you would be surprised as to how few.

The reason we won't see trench warfare isn't because of any of the reasons you stated, it's because of speed. Modern militaries move a lot faster than they did back in 1914 and and 1939. There simply wouldn't be enough time to dig an extensive network of trench fortifications. Add to the equation airdrop capability, special forces deployments, and the objective of modern warfare is to sever the head and let the body bleed out, means that even if you do dig an extensive trenchline, it'll be bypassed in one way or another and the enemy leadership neutralized as quickly as possible, irregardless of ground based defenses. However, if enemy airpower is neutralized, it will become a viable tactic. If your opponent no longer has the ability to fly over and conduct air drops (or strategic bombing campaigns against your industry behind your lines), then trenches are probably the way to go. Your opponent will have a hell of a time entrenching in the face of your guns on a modern battlefield. You could theoretically fight and win an entire war from within a trench (if something like the above-mentioned anti-air laser system was constructed and anything flying over was instantaneously destroyed).

I guess we can agree to disagree. BTW - you keep debating with me about something that I'm not against or for such as trench protection and how important it is. I keep saying Trench warfare from the get go that those days are long gone and you keep bring it up. Ofcourse there are trenches and there are usage for modern day. So as fox hole and pit with bamboo spikes and landmines. I don't like to shout, but get this TRENCH WARFARE is long gone. You understand what the term trench warfare is right, I'm not talking about a US base with some trenches and fox hole here.

And the bayonet thing . .. yeah they look scary, but I garantee you those who ever surrender from those "bayonet charges" would have surrender if those troops didn't have the bayonet on the riffle. They were scare of the troops coming at them. Are you saying that if the charge didn't have the bayonet, the enemy wouldn't surrender? BTW when you put the bayonet, most of the time, it effect your shooting ability. Last time, Bayonet is an extra almost last option tool. Your rifle shooting is your main tool. I can give every combat personal super sharp Katana and look really scary charging with them and a 9mm side arm like Japanese officer in WW2 and it ain't going to change a thing. Any enemy with the right mind will shoot them.


Oh and go die a hero, you just wasted your army resources by being a fool. All the military training put in you are all gone, what a waste of life.

Mad Jack Deacon
08-08-2008, 06:15
Now that we're so OT that it's painful, and people are taking entrenched (get it?) positions, Slaannghoul, no one here ever said that using a bayonet ever won a war.

I'm former U.S. Army infantry and I can tell you personally that a bayonet is a purely psychological weapon on both the giving and receiving end. True, it may kill someone somewhere on the battlefield. But the advantage to troops fixing bayonets to charge, defend a position, or like the Drill Sergeants @ Ft Benning teach to "KILL! KILL! KILL WITHOUT MERCY!" is strictly psychological.

The soldiers that fix bayonets put themselves in a mindset that combat is about to get ugly, messy, and brutal. Soldiers on the receiving end of a bayonet charge are usually so shocked that they freeze. Which grants a momentary advantage to the attacker. Colonel Joshua Chamberlain proved this at Gettysburg, and I'm sure there have been instances in America's current engagement in the Gulf where soldiers have "fixed bayonets!" and charged through the enemy.

All this is really moot though when you consider the Eldar helmet. With it's conical shape it very well could've been designed to direct a club, choppa, or lasrifle with fixed bayonet away from the delicate crown of the Eldar head and onto the more durable pauldrons. Thus preserving yet another costly Eldar life...

Burnthem
08-08-2008, 18:34
Come on everyone, we all know the real question here is this - Do Eldar use thier helmets as bayonets? And if not, why not?


;)

chaos0xomega
08-08-2008, 19:36
Actually, wouldn't the high eldar helmet be a liability in combat? If you're hitting the helmet near the top, then you have a decent sized moment-arm. It wouldn't be all that hard to put enough force into it to snap the wearers neck.

Wolfblade670
08-08-2008, 19:47
All this is really moot though when you consider the Eldar helmet. With it's conical shape it very well could've been designed to direct a club, choppa, or lasrifle with fixed bayonet away from the delicate crown of the Eldar head and onto the more durable pauldrons. Thus preserving yet another costly Eldar life...

You know what, dammit, why didn't I think of that?!

As a student of Medieval Arms I should have seen it! Perhaps the Eldar helmet is designed to defelct blows similar to the "Suagr Loaf" pattern great helm (circa 14th century Europe)!

Pics here:

http://historicaltraders.com/website_ht-revised_035.htm

(Though I'd also vote for cultural factors as well...)