When force field is invented, will melee weapons come back?

File: white people.jpg (82KB, 640x774px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x774px

Well why can you pass through it and your swing of a weapon but not a bullet?
Have you thought this out, bud?

>>34143516

>If some kind of barrier is developed to protect against kinetic based attacks, will much weaker kinetic based attacks penetrate it?

>>34143533
Force field activates around a parameter, it doesn't wrap around a body.

Why would melee attacks go through it?
Anyway, I'd just use explosives

>>34143546
See >>34143542

>>34143542
>>34143548
So why wouldn't you just shoot them when you get inside the field of effect?

>>34143548
So? Why would your magical force field let through a person with a weapon but not a bullet?
>uh oh but it's magic shield like in dune that stops fast moving objects!
Then use gasses, flames, low-velocity projectiles or once again explosives

>>34143551
Because it's faster to just swing a sword?

>>34143562
I don't think a force field can stop a person from entering, too much mass compared to bullets.

>>34143542

Why would the barrier be that large? How would you facilitate entry into this magical barrier? If the barrier is intended to block shit how does it determine what to selectively block and let through? Why have you not taken 10 seconds to think your question through before posting it and killing a thread?

You idiots.

The slow blade penetrates the shield. Have you not watched Dune?

>>34143571
Bullets are low mass fast traveling objects.

Human beings are high mass objects.

>>34143563
It isn't. Why would anyone make a force field big enough to allow another person inside it?

>>34143570

Mass does not determine penetrative power.

>>34143576

see

>>34143579

>>34143577
Because it's supposed to cover a human body? It needs more than arm length perimeter at least.
>>34143579
Said mass has speed too.

>>34143570
Just use bigger bulles, duh

>>34143516
We'll beat their forcefields with our new human thumb bullets.

>>34143563
>time to pull a trigger
vs
>time to swing whatever implement
Plus, why wouldn't the guys in the force-fields have guns too?
Melee weapons aren't necessarily the best even at close range.

>>34143595
They can have guns, but guns aren't necessary better than blades at close range.

Sword and axe has better accuracy too due to the swing reach.

>>34143591
It's just cheaper to use a sword or axe.

>>34143587

So you're saying a man at running speed significantly higher surface area than a spitzer bullet moving much slower, mind you, will penetrate an anti-kinetic barrier instead of said bullet? Do you have any understanding of basic physics?

>>34143605
Constant interaction with the shield at higher mass will make it running out of juice earlier.

>>34143615

Can you explain why?

>>34143516
Shields attract the makers, Usul.

>>34143595
You wouldn't be able to swing a melee weapon in such close range effectively. Should use something more like a pike
Or even better, a long ass shotgun.
Anyway, low velocity grenades would be better for this kind of situation. Just give them a delayed trigger on force field penetration and after that the shrapnel won't even leave said forcefield so it's safe for shooter.

>>34143618
Because the shield has to direct more energies to stop this high mass object that keeps interacting with it without stopping.

>>34143615
So just shoot it until it runs out of power?

>>34143624
>It can't knock on a door, drink tea, search a clothes chest, fix a well, and then kill dudes inside rooms. If blind high-collateral damage was acceptable, drones wouldn't be a thing, we'd use nukes.
What the fuck are you talking about?

The saber is within fucking arm reach, the axe less than that, the pike is 2 to 3 meters long.

>>34143636
Yes, but the shielded user can also get in cover.

Getting him into melee range means he cannot hide.

>>34143630

Nigga you don't understand. It's harder to stop a force concentrated on a small surface area than it is to stop the same amount of force on a larger one. It's why a charging linebacker won't go through a man's chest cavity but a .357 magnum will. Your magical force field makes no sense according to all known laws of physics.

>>34143516
>>34143533
>>34143540
>>34143546
>>34143562
>>34143605

https://youtu.be/bLiNHqwgWaQ?t=2m50s

Non-newtonian liquids are being researched for employment in body armor. High viscosity allows you to dip your hand into slowly, but if you try and punch it it becomes like concrete for a split second. Has to do with the speed at which it can be displaced.
If force fields operated similarly (i.e. employed to stop high-speed projectiles) then a blade would be better, yes.

>>34143640
What the fuck YOU are talking about?
>The saber is within fucking arm reach, the axe less than that
lmao, you have no idea what you are talking about

>>34143599
>Sword and axe has better accuracy too due to the swing reach
Is this a meme?
It is now.

>>34143657
Bullets only have the initial momentum, it's only needed to be stop once.

Cannot say the same to a high mass with a will of its own that will not stop even with resistance.

>>34143662

Thank you, that was light years more helpful of an explanation than the vague and nonsensical bullshit thrown around by the idiot who made this thread.

>>34143665
Dude, I think you can try employing a pike in a tight corridor versus a saber.

>>34143667
You still have to aim your pistol at close range you know.

Unlike bullet, you can swing your axe or saber horizontally, covering a much bigger area

>>34143662
seems like itd be cheaper to just use a piece of a dinnerplate and some springs

>>34143673

No, bullets don't immediately stop the moment they encounter the slightest bit of resistance. Otherwise the friction of interacting with the barrel would have rendered all firearms since the beginning of time useless.

>>34143673
Riiight. This is why people cut things with their palms and fingers instead of knives

>>34143694
This is not the slightest bit of resistance though, this is an electronic force field.

And instead of stopping, it can deflect the bullet instead, sending it in an opposite direction.

>>34143662
looking forward to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ens0G_Upc

>>34143699
To be frank, they do use clubs and maces against armor instead of knives.

>>34143704

And what of substances that are not affected by magnetic fields?

>>34143713
I don't think there are anything in particular, but the human mass will not be deflected because you know, the human can readjust his vector, so unless you employ some kind of aiming bullets, I think it's just cheaper to jump in and chop him up.

>>34143707
>tfw RND guarantees you a 98% survival rate, but the remaining 2% is guaranteed slow, gruesome, up close and personal death
thanks science fags

>>34143727
Back to the Middle ages!

File: diamagnetic metals.gif (48KB, 457x290px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 457x290px

>>34143723

>>34143737
So this is your solution, to make bullets in Cr?

>>34143746
Are you stupid?
Only a handful of metals react to electromagnetism

>>34143746

It's no more ridiculous than having a force field that has absolutely ludicrous power consumption just so it can do nothing that can't be accomplished with traditional body armor.

>>34143765
The point of force field is stop the bullets an arm length from the body.

Body armor stops the bullet, it doesn't stop shit like concussion. Also no helmet on earth will save you from a .308.

>>34143764
And these metals are most well-used in warfare because they are tough and easily manufactured.

>>34143777

Congratulations, you have developed a means of protecting people that severely fucks with electronics, flushes untold sums of money down the toilet to run for a fraction of a second, and can't be moved in any practical manner. All of which so you can be stabbed by a piece of pointed plastic, but hey, at least that bullet didn't wind you! Your grant money amounts to a piece of lint and a paper clip.

File: flamethrower.jpg (111KB, 1022x589px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1022x589px

THIS is my melee weapon

>>34143798
Considering that negates the fuckhuge advantage of guns, that is the ability to kill from afar, yes, that would be game changing.

Melee combat is also much harder than ranged combat, putting more parties at risk.

>>34143808

Explain to me how something this woefully impractical is game changing. No government will shell out a planetary mass of currency to build or run this regardless of what or who it's for. As people have indicated, there are half a dozen other ways to kill someone using this besides poking them to death, and ultimately nothing like this could be kept running long anyways due to resource consumption. It accomplishes nothing at all.

>>34143836
Cuz it means tactics have to be revoked seeing it's much harder to kill with guns now? Combats will become much more closed range?

>there are half a dozen other ways to kill someone using this besides poking them to death
All involving flamethrower, explosives and shotgun, which are heavier and more complex than just simple sword or axes.

>implying shields will be effective against hyper-dense projectiles
>implying bullets won't just be made of osmium or iridium
>implying shields won't draw the makers
>implying he who controls the spice doesn't control the universe

Y'all mother fuckers need the Kwisatz Haderach

We Dune soon?

>>34143862
Hopefully, because goddamn I want to be that dude with the longsword again.

>>34143846

Again, you conveniently ignore my points about power, portability, and cost because much like socialists I suspect you're just going to sweep this inconvenient information under the rug. All of my criticisms are leveled towards a structure that would only be capable of shielding a singular person to make this reasonable. Tell me how this is going to scale up. While you're at it, let me know why creating a bankruptcy that not even 10 Earths could foot would be worth what would to scale be a minor inconvenience in tactics and a few trillion dollars worth of reequipping for whatever party is involved. This is like Archimedes' death ray all over again, a whole lot of work for jack shit in returns.

>>34143899
Dude, I'm speaking about WHEN force field is invented.

It's obviously not now, but if the tech is successful and portable, it would be the rebirth of close range melee, at least for infantry vs infantry.

Sounds like you're talking about the Dune velocity-based shields. I can think of several things to get around it
>heat
>EM that generated heat (HERF, lasers)
>poison
>inert gas
>slow moving explosives, like a magnetic rolly grenade or an RC car explosive
or since people are discussing energy consumption, perhaps something that triggers a false positive on the force field causing it to drain energy. Like inaudible low-freq sound that triggers the forcefield. That would depend on implementation of course.

if Forcefields block fast movers, just shoot with slow moving Frag-grenades

>>34143918
other idea: playing with the bounds or the field and how it interacts with moving objects. Do you have to disable when riding in a vehicle? Does the vehicle get a forcefield? How to the field differentiate between rocks and junk on the road vs the road vs a bomb? Does the field penetrate into the ground, does that use power when walking, will a mine still blow your foot off, will a dinnerplate-shaped RC explosive slip under the field? etc etc

>>34143909

Only in the masturbatory fantasies of Frank Herbert. As I mentioned before, while not using firearms is not ideal there are plenty of substitutes to them well suited against this method of protection that would be infinitely better than inefficient and exceedingly hazardous melee combat.

File: pretty_weird.jpg (144KB, 661x1024px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 661x1024px

>>34143516
not unless a laser striking it causes a nuclear bomb grade reaction

>>34143764
>Only a handful of metals react to electromagnetism
One of the defining characteristics of a metal is that it is affected by electromagnetism. That's one of the key traits that separates metals from non-metals on the table.

>>34143918
>>34143928
What not about not blocking but deflecting?

>Not using nerotoxin darts fired from a slingshot to pass through the barrier without activating it.

>>34143977
you are thinking about electrical conductivity

>>34143918
>EM that generated heat (HERF, lasers)
Remember that the Dune shields would react with lasers in such a way that their power systems would overload and cause the equivalent of a low yield nuclear blast.

>>34143984
That would be blocked by real armor.

Can you imagine it, wearing plate armor as well as having a force field?

>>34143992
And you lack a basic understanding of physics. Electrical conductivity is a product of the way a metal interacts with electromagnetic fields.

I can imagine it, a bullet is changed vector inside an electromagnetism field.

>>34143994
It makes me wonder why the heck anyone used the shields. If a base is protected by a shield, hit it with a laser from orbit. Done.

If a guy wants to suicide bomb a place, he turns on his shield and shoots himself. Done.

>>34143947
I don't think there are simpler and cheaper ways than to just mass produce swords and teach everyone how to use them.

>>34143516
When autism is cured will stupid questions like this get said?

>>34143516
>>34143533
We fuckin dune now

>>34143683
No lol

ITT
>muh dune
>/k/ tries to science and fails horribly
>one inderasting post on non newtonian armor

The biggest issue id see with that sorta armor is itd leak once you got shot. Unless maybe you could put a self sealing layer in that can handle bullet sizes

Also i want to shoot water + corn starch now

>>34144038

M8 you don't get it. Melee weapons rely too much on personal skill and are far from idiot proof. It would be far easier to train a conscript to point and shoot a flamethrower or grenade launcher than to learn fancy maneuvering and other bullshit. It keeps risk to a minimum and allows for faster, cheaper training. Ultimately cheaper than the cost of having to replace every dumbfuck recruit who got stabbed as well as his gear.

>>34144083
A guy with a sword is cheaper than a guy with a flame thrower desu

>>34143995
>Can you imagine it, wearing plate armor as well as having a force field?
I imagine it would be very painful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pRihxvk4YY

>>34143572
mah sardaukar.

>>34144092

Until you lose 7 of them because they got outskilled. It's better to rely on weapons that don't require much skill in the first place so proficiency in their use is easy. And I don't favor the odds of a bunch of ""shielded"" tards waving around sharp metal versus two people armed with flamethrowers that bypass said shields.

>>34144083
People have been killed by women with knives, you know. Personal skill my ass. Thrusting a blade is easy pee.

>>34144108
Good luck with friendly fire, m8.

>>34143563
Sword fags, ladies and gentlemen!
>heh, my arm can swing a sword faster than a bullet!

>>34144157
There's a reason there's a 3 foot rule regarding firearm vs knife.

You can shoot that gun fast sure, but accurately, at close range?

Nah, bitch boi.

>>34144168
>3 foot rule

lol

>>34144186
Apparently not a thing now huh?

Give everyone subsonic explosive rounds
Use fire
Explosives in general
Overwhelm the shield with volume of fire
Destroy the power supply

>>34144188
It's 21 feet. It sounds big, but my own experience when playing dark souls seems to confirm it. A player can sprint a surprisingly long distance to stab you in the time it takes to draw a crossbow and aim it. It's scary how fast the distance is crossed.

>>34143836
dipshit, it obviously wouldnt be made unless advances in nuclear or batterys came about

fucking retard.

>>34143599
>I'm twelve and what is this
The post

>>34144293
...what is wrong with that post?

Are you saying it's easier to shoot guns accurately in close quarter as opposed to just swinging a sword?

File: IMG_4140.jpg (107KB, 736x1372px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 736x1372px

>>34144310
Well first of all, yes. Shooting a gun at any range is a hell of a lot faster than swinging a heavy ass sword or heavier ass axe. Especially in a combat situation where your gun is already at the ready.
Second of all, that poster's sentence structure, spelling, and grammar is indicative of someone who's not a native English speaker, or a twelve year old. My bets are for twelve year old.
Third of all, anyone who so vehemently wants to believe that melee weapons will be practical in a modern/futuristic warfare scenario is just too young to own guns (ie, a twelve year old), or is just extremely autistic

>>34144350
>Well first of all, yes. Shooting a gun at any range is a hell of a lot faster than swinging a heavy ass sword or heavier ass axe.
Well then you are wrong, because this is how you fast you can swing a sword:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo&t=8s
> Especially in a combat situation where your gun is already at the ready.
Not true even for this.

>Third of all, anyone who so vehemently wants to believe that melee weapons will be practical in a modern/futuristic warfare scenario is just too young to own guns (ie, a twelve year old), or is just extremely autistic
Or they know that weapon follow armor development, if armor becomes better than firearm, something will replace firearm.

>>34144350
Lieutenant-Colonel John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming "Jack" Churchill, DSO & Bar, MC & Bar (16 September 1906 – 8 March 1996), was a British Army officer who fought throughout the Second World War armed with a longbow, bagpipes, and a basket-hilted Scottish broadsword

As part of the British Expeditionary Force to France, in May 1940, Churchill and his unit, the Manchester Regiment, ambushed a German patrol near L'Épinette (near Richebourg in the Pas-de-Calais), France. Churchill gave the signal to attack by cutting down the enemy Feldwebel (staff sergeant) with a barbed arrow, becoming the only British soldier known to have felled an enemy with a longbow in the war.[10] According to his son, Malcolm, "he and his section were in a tower and, as the Germans approached, he said, 'I will shoot that first German with an arrow,' and that's exactly what he did." After fighting at Dunkirk, he volunteered for the Commandos.

In July 1943, as commanding officer, he led 2 Commando from their landing site at Catania in Sicily with his trademark Scottish broadsword slung around his waist, a longbow and arrows around his neck and his bagpipes under his arm,[ which he also did in the landings at Salerno.

Leading 2 Commando, Churchill was ordered to capture a German observation post outside the town of Molina , controlling a pass leading down to the Salerno beachhead.With the help of a corporal, he infiltrated the town and captured it, taking 42 prisoners . Churchill led the men and prisoners back down , with the wounded being carried on carts pushed by German prisoners.

Churchill walking back to the town to get this sword, which he had lost in hand-to-hand combat with the German regiment. On his way , he met an American patrol, mistakenly walking towards enemy lines. When the NCO in command of the patrol refused to turn around, Churchill told them that he was going his own way and "that he wouldn't come back for a bloody third time"

File: mad_jack_churchill-640x336.jpg (68KB, 640x336px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x336px

>>34144350

>>34144188
It was never a thing you dimwit

>>34144396
Oh so I guess it's just fuddlore then?

Oh wait, it exists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

File: images.jpg (10KB, 308x164px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 308x164px

>>34144350

Always an exception to the safe formulaic worlds teenagers construct to try and deal with the reality of life which is anything goes and can or will happen. Including Wehrmacht mortar squads getting taken out with a Scottish claymore back sword.

>>34144362
>something will replace firearm
Correct. As history has shown us, that will be a more powerful firearm.

>>34144411
Wut? So did firearm replace firearm?

>>34144406
One night, he single-handedly took forty-two German prisoners and captured a mortar crew using only his broadsword. He simply took one patrolling guard as a human shield and went around from sentry post to sentry post, sneaking up on the guards and then shoving his sword in their faces until they surrendered. His response when asked about how he was able to capture so many soldiers so easily:
"I maintain that, as long as you tell a German loudly and clearly what to do, if you are senior to him he will cry 'jawohl' (yes sir) and get on with it enthusiastically and efficiently whatever the situation."

>>34144395
>>34144406
Jack Churchill was a incompetent officer who put the lives of his men in danger for bragging rights. The only reason he wasn't killed was because he was the least dangerous man on the battlefield.

>>34144414
yes. dipshit.

>>34144427
Say that to his face.

>>34144431
Uh, so why do things like missiles exist?

Shouldn't firearm replace missiles as well?

What about grenades? Or explosives? Do firearms replace those as well?

>>34144427
winning the Military Cross and Distinguished Service Order (DSO)...........

When his training was completed, he took part in the daring amphibious assault on the German base in Vaagso, Norway. As the leader of Number 2 Commando, Churchill was responsible for taking out the artillery batteries on Maaloy Island. As the landing craft raced towards their LZ, he belted out "The March of the Cameron Men" on the bagpipes to pump up his men and prove to everyone how awesome he was. When the assault ramp swung open, he fearlessly waded through knee-deep water out at the head of his men, with his trusty blade lofted high in the air, screaming "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!" at the top of his lungs. Two hours later, British High Command received a telegram from the front:

Maaloy battery and island captured. Casualties slight. Demolitions in progress. Churchill."

During the British landing at Salerno, he won another award for bravery. His squad was charged with taking out an artillery battery that was pinning down a nearby British force, despite the fact that the town of Piegoletti (where the guns were based) was garrisoned by a force much larger than his own Number 2 Commando. Well Churchill was like, "fuck that". In the middle of the night, he had his men charge the town from all sides, screaming "COOMMAAANNNNDOOO!!!" as loud as possible. The Germans were confused and surprised, and mounted a futile resistance. The 50 men of Number 2 Commando took 136 prisoners and inflicted an unknown number of casualties.

>>34144362
The range on those sabers tho
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE

Seriously, kids these days, they believe they are invincible with a gun.

File: 1407312919921.png (204KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 600x600px

>>34143516
Bayonets, you nigger.

>>34144446
The range?

You mean 3 feet next to the shooter?

Have you kept up with the discussion or you are playing memes?

>>34144451
Bayonet is not the optimal weapon, no.

There's a reason trench fighters use knives, mace and clubs instead of rifle bayonets.

>>34144459
>There's a reason trench fighters use knives, mace and clubs instead of rifle bayonets
No. They use their assault rifles and grenades. We're not living in 1916, retard.

>>34144455
I've been actively participating. You showed me a video of two people dueling with sabers. Super cool, kiddo. How about one where somebody with a sword goes up against somebody with a rifle.

>>34144464
Oh except the part the premise of this thread, bullet not working due to force field aside from melee range.

>>34144405
Obviously having the gun in the holster really slows things down. Do you not understand the 21 feet rule?

>>34144466
Here you go: >>34144405

Knife vs pistol.

>>34144467
Then you use bayonets.

>>34144469
I'm talking about the fucking 3 feet rule.

3 fucking feet.

>>34144030
>If a guy wants to suicide bomb a place, he turns on his shield and shoots himself. Done.
Fremen did this during the great jihad.

>It makes me wonder why the heck anyone used the shields. If a base is protected by a shield, hit it with a laser from orbit. Done.
Stuff like orbital bombardment was covered by the whole Landsraad deal. Any house/organization/government that used WMD level weapons would be fucked up by all the houses of the Landsraad. Also there was a component of honor to it as well, all the houses had to maintain at least a semblance of honorable battle lest the other houses turn against them similarly to the WMD policy. A fair portion of it is accredited to the Butlerian Jihad and how close humanity came to extinction from it.

If you've read the books, remember that they started to use more modern tactics and strategy after all the houses were subjugated by Paul Atredies in the Fremen Jihad and Leto II became the God Emperor.

>>34144477
Then see >>34144459

>>34144486
Trench clubs and the like were used because most people were armed with bolt-action rifles. With a semi-automatic weapon, there's no reason not to use a bayonet.

>>34144489
What?

What does that even mean?

Do you forget the part when bullet not working?

>>34144481
Pulling a trigger is faster than swinging a sword. This is self-evident.

>>34144092
Tell that to 17th century Eurotards.

>>34144502
Pulling a trigger is faster, but hitting at close range (3 feet) accurately is another matter.

>This is self-evident.
Prove it?

>>34144509
I'm sorry what? 17th centuries eurotards had flamethrower?

What the fuck is /k/ up nowadays?

>>34144499
>Do you forget the part when bullet not working?
So guns are completely useless then, for some inexplicable reason? No rounds capable of penetrating the forcefield? No disruptor grenades? No EMP? No mass drivers? Nothing? Just hurrgunsdunwork magic forcefields?
In that case, no, melee weapons won't come back. Human combatants themselves will lose importance as drones with knives attached to them take presedence, since apparently no ranged combat is possible.

>>34144467
>>34144471
>Unsuspecting officer approaching someone he doesn't know is going to stab him
>futuristic combat scenario where someone is actively running towards your force field with a sword drawn
Your gun is already going to be shouldered, aimed, and set to kill you dumbshit. The trigger pull takes less than a half a second

>>34144520
Jesus christ, read the fucking thread.

Electromagnetism field deflecting bullet.

Non-newtonian armor just hardens up at fast bullets.

>with knives attached to them take presedence
So knives aren't melee weapons?

>>34144510
I understand now. You are legit retarded.

Force and distance required to swing a sword: massive.
Force and distance required to pull a trigger: tiny.

3 feet isn't even point-blank range, it is impossible to miss with a gun at that distance unless you're drunk, and not even then.

>>34144523
>The trigger pull takes less than a half a second
The single act of thrusting the sword while running up to you takes no second.

>>34144525
Last I heard, swords are made of metal too. If your swords aren't made of metal, what's stopping bullets from doing the same?

>>34144525
>Jesus christ, read the fucking thread.
So, Just hurrgunsdunwork magic forcefields?
>So knives aren't melee weapons?
A drone with sharp bits in its design is not a melee weapon. I'm essentially talking about swarms of drones that are essentially optics, a small computer, some kind of propulsion system and a blade jutting forward, flying towards everyone and everything with a forcefield. Do you call that a melee weapon?

>>34144529
>takes no second
nothing personnel kid

>>34144526
>Force and distance required to swing a sword: massive.
Wait, what? Please explain that massive force.
>3 feet isn't even point-blank range, it is impossible to miss with a gun at that distance unless you're drunk, and not even then.
Except when they do.
Holy shit, /k/ probably think they are invincible with a drawn gun.

>>34144530
See >>34143662

>>34144517
>Guy with a sword is cheaper than a guy with a flamethrower
Your premise is that because making a sword is cheaper than making a flame thrower, it is more beneficial to make a shit load of swords and hand them out like candy.
>In 17th century Europe, a guy with a sword was cheaper than a guy with an arquebis.
Guess which guys were more desired in a battle.

The point is that even though the guy with the sword is cheaper, it doesn't mean shit when he and his six other buddies are killed before they can use that sword by a single guy with a better weapon.

>>34144531
>So, Just hurrgunsdunwork magic forcefields?
No
>Electromagnetism field deflecting bullet.

>Non-newtonian armor just hardens up at fast bullets.

>A drone with sharp bits in its design is not a melee weapon.
Then what the fuck are they? Are they not weapon that engage in melee?

>>34144529
You're comparing the twitch of a finger to the thrust of an entire arm! Your mom was drinking when she was pregnant with you, wasn't she?

>>34144555
>No
Considering your fields seemingly do not require power, cannot be overloaded, negated, breached, broken or anything of the sort, I will claim that they are nothing but hurrgunsdunwork magic forcefields.
>Then what the fuck are they? Are they not weapon that engage in melee?
Is a bullet a melee weapon because it flies towards and impacts with a target?

>>34144546
>Guess which guys were more desired in a battle.
Arquebus has better range, and a fear factor.

>The point is that even though the guy with the sword is cheaper, it doesn't mean shit when he and his six other buddies are killed before they can use that sword by a single guy with a better weapon.
As said, good luck with friendly fire.

Chance is you are gonna roast everyone next to you with the flame thrower.

>>34144563
The thrust of an entire arm is essentially a pose.

You just move your hip, your arm doesn't even move.
>>34144566
>Considering your fields seemingly do not require power, cannot be overloaded, negated, breached, broken or anything of the sort, I will claim that they are nothing but hurrgunsdunwork magic forcefields.
But they can be overloaded and negated, it just makes killing with bullet harder.
>Is a bullet a melee weapon because it flies towards and impacts with a target?
A bullet is fired from a gun and projected at the enemy, thus it's a projectile, is your drone fired from a cannon?

>>34144576
>is your drone fired from a cannon?
Is a missile a melee weapon?

>>34144555
>>34144545
>Non-Newtonian armor
Hate to break it to you friendo, but every substance in the universe has a limit to the amount of energy it can dissipate through it's structure. If you exceed that energy, the structure will fail and the energy will continue through the substance. There is not a single non-Newtonian substance in human knowledge that could absorb the energy of a .50bmg with a mass small enough so as to be man-portable.

>>34144586
A missile is fired from a launcher.

Is your drone fired from a cannon?

File: IMG_4141.jpg (133KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 768x768px

>>34144576
>thrusting a sword doesn't require arm movement
So you're charging at me with your arm extended? I guess that makes it easier to parry/ sidestep before I buttstroke your face if I don't decide to shoot you first.

>>34144589
Then we are back to electromagnetism field.

Because that exists, and can change vector of already flying objects.

>>34144597
So instead of shooting me, you decide to sidestep like a bro and then buttstroking me.

Yeah, that will work.

In fact, don't shoot me, do that so I can skewer your ass.

File: tumblr_kp9f6diIOO1qz9bwro1_500.jpg (76KB, 500x473px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x473px

>>34144569
>As said, good luck with friendly fire.
>Chance is you are gonna roast everyone next to you with the flame thrower.
Ah yes, I forgot that every flame thrower ever used by man would just spit flaming liquid in every possible direction instead of the direction the nozzle was pointed.

>>34144590
>A missile is fired from a launcher.
Do you classify an airplane as a launcher? Are air-to-air missiles like Sidewinders fired from a "launcher"?
>Is your drone fired from a cannon?
Sure, you could design systems like that. Lots of surveillance drones are fired using catapults.

A missile or drone is not a melee weapon, anon.

>>34144599
Why can't it change the vector of a melee weapon? It's not like as if a melee weapon has more kinetic energy than a bullet.

>>34144608
I also forget that flame thrower is actually a very accurate weapon that never spills out in a cone.

>>34144618
This is just embarassing dude, I know you want your retarded concept to work, but stop it with the autistic screeching.

>>34144614
>Do you classify an airplane as a launcher? Are air-to-air missiles like Sidewinders fired from a "launcher"?
Yes, I would consider so, missiles are fired from the planes.
>Sure, you could design systems like that. Lots of surveillance drones are fired using catapults.
So they are a projectiles indeed.

>A missile or drone is not a melee weapon, anon.
Drones that are used to cut, then fly back and cut some more are melee weapons. If they aren't, why use drones, just shoot knives.

File: retards.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

>>34144618
>cone
>roasts everyone next to you
Wow gotta watch out for those 200 degree cones of fire.

>>34144617
Because there's a man behind it that can readjust its vector.
>>34144624
I'm just posting sci-fi dude, any problems?

>>34144628
Yeah, man, your allies just conveniently stay behind you or next to you every times you shoot flames.

After all, you are the point man.

Oh wait, everyone is using flame thrower.

>>34144631
Do you even know how much time it would take a man pushing with all his might to even equal the energy of a single 5.56?

>>34144626
>So they are a projectiles indeed.
No. They are possibly fired into the air through a catapult or other propulsion system, but they have their OWN active propulsion, guidance and can fly around as they wish, even land if ordered to. Thus, they are not projectiles.
>Drones that are used to cut, then fly back and cut some more are melee weapons
No, they are DRONES.
>If they aren't, why use drones, just shoot knives.
Oh, so NOW bullets work then? Could you make up your mind on how your magic hurrdurr forcefields function?

>>34144605
Why don't you take all that angry, misguided teenage angst and cut your wrists like a normal kid?

>>34144631
>I'm just posting sci-fi dude, any problems?
It is when you fy in the face of common sense to describe flame throwers as something that inevitably produces friendly fire.

>>34144638
I don't know, since the force field doesn't negate the energy of the 5.56, it just changes its vector.

>>34144648
OK, do you know how much energy it would take to change the vector of something moving as fast as a bullet in time to make it miss its target?

>>34143918
lasguns make shields go BOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!

>>34144639
>Thus, they are not projectiles.
So they are drones using melee weapons.
>No, they are DRONES.
Drones that use melee weapons are melee weapons.
>Oh, so NOW bullets work then? Could you make up your mind on how your magic hurrdurr forcefields function?
I dunno, a drone can readjust its vector mid-flight due to its propulsion system, can a flying knife or a bullet readjust its vector mid-flight?

File: Equilibrium.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34144310
It is very much so. You are making the mistake of comparing civilian incidents where people are exposed to split second changes in their environment to sword bearing infantry going into battle with awareness of what is happening. A man armed with a sheathed sword will have just as much trouble reacting to someone suddenly walking up to him and gutting him as a man with a holstered gun would. Just like how a man with a gun and intent to kill has as little trouble shooting someone point blank as a man with a knife has trouble stabbing someone. However pointing a gun is a lot faster than swinging a sword, assuming you have both at the ready.

Guns still have advantages over swords in point blank range. Dune shield fighting would probably be a lot more like close range gunkata or those fights between the magic girls in Madoka (as stupid as that sounds), than a sword fight. It's all about getting your gun pointed at the guy while stopping him from pointing his gun at you.

>>34144103
>muh bene gesserit
>muh navigators
>muh fish speakers
>muh weirding way

File: goalposts.jpg (89KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 594x395px

>>34144599
>Then we are back to electromagnetism field.
>Because that exists, and can change vector of already flying objects.
So what you're saying is that every one of your pretend shielded soldiers with their super cheaper than a flame thrower/grenade launcher sword is going to be carrying a device capable of generating a magnetic field so strong that it would require the equivalence of multiple nuclear reactors worth of energy to maintain?
Wow you sure have thought this through.

By the way, even if you were able to generate enough power for such a field, turning it on would likely kill the guy wearing it instantly.

Also by the way, if you have the energy storage capacity for that, then you'd also have the energy storage capacity necessary for handheld megawatt class laser weapons.

>>34144653
About a steel plate?

Bullet ricochets.
>>34144647
Yeah, I think a universe where everyone use flame thrower is gonna produce a lot of friendly fire.
>>34144644
Because sadly, I don't have angry, misguided teenage angst?

Why don't you shoot yourself instead, anon?

>>34144656
>So they are drones using melee weapons.
No, the drones are not "using weapons". They have a sharp fuselage and they just ram things.
>Drones that use melee weapons are melee weapons.
Anons who make this claim are undoubtedly retarded faggots. Why don't you throw in a couple arguments for your bullshit claims in your next post and stop yourself from looking either stupid or underage?
>I dunno, a drone can readjust its vector mid-flight due to its propulsion system, can a flying knife or a bullet readjust its vector mid-flight?
What the fuck are you talking about? First you were saying bullets wouldn't work because magic forcefields, then next when I suggest drones that ram into things, all of a sudden "shooting knives" would work? The fuck is the difference between shooting a sharp thing and a bullet?

>>34144044
I came here to say that

>>34144663
Yes, yes, we are speaking about WHEN that kind of force field is invented.

I'm not talking about how possible it is.

>>34144635
>Yeah, man, your allies just conveniently stay behind you or next to you every times you shoot flames.
I see you don't grasp the concept of a skirmish line. Shouldn't you be watching Saturday morning cartoons?

>>34144563
>Your mom was drinking when she was pregnant with you, wasn't she?
mine was smoking rocks till even the dopeman cut her off

>>34144658
It is very much wrong, see >>34144405

At 3 feet, you can stab and kill just as quick as you can shoot a pistol, even if you got the pistol out.

File: 1343666232966.jpg (18KB, 559x556px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 559x556px

>>34144664
>A steel plate is a unit of energy
AKA
>I don't know, it turns out actually melee weapons would be worse than bullets against my snowflake forcefields

>>34144672
Oh we are doing skirmish lines now?

Are we back to linear tactics?

File: 1495924425307.gif (405KB, 722x720px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 722x720px

>>34144638
Like less than a second? A 5.56 round, according to Wikipedia has a kinetic energy of around ~1800 Joules 100 metres from the barrel. That's equivalent to an 80kg man jogging at 6.7m/s.

>>34144664
>Yeah, I think a universe where everyone use flame thrower is gonna produce a lot of friendly fire.
Maybe in your wet dreams where everybody is as retarded as you. Do you know ball and shot have a bigger spread than flamethrowers?

>>34144599
holtzman fields in dune are some kind of almost time skip reverse gellar fields. they transubstantiate matter into energy, and plasma.

>>34144666
>No, the drones are not "using weapons". They have a sharp fuselage and they just ram things.
So they use their sharp edge as weapons, do they not? Do you consider sharp edge as melee weapon?
>Anons who make this claim are undoubtedly retarded faggots. Why don't you throw in a couple arguments for your bullshit claims in your next post and stop yourself from looking either stupid or underage?
Wut? Weapon that engages in melee is a melee weapon.
>What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm talking about a force field that can deflect bullet and projectile by turning away their vectors.

This way bullets do not work, as well as flying knives. I'm saying if all your drones can do is ramming instead and cannot re-adjust their vectors, they would be useless too?

>>34144680
Do you know the rate of fire of a gun?

>>34144677
>Muh faggots with magic shields and swords
May as well since they can't do shit without charging your line.

>>34144682
I also know ball and shot has less area of effect than flamethrower.

>>34144676
A moving steel plate contains energy no?

>>34144695
Nobody is even talking about lines here.

We are talking about modern warfare with cover and such, I'm sorry but with cover, my guy with armor and a sword is going to outmaneuver your guys with flamethrower.

It's going to be a clusterfuck when in a panic, you roast your allies though.

>>34144700
>A moving steel plate contains energy no?
A handgun round generally has enough energy at the muzzle to be equivalent to the impact of the end of a baseball bat swung by an average man.

Now multiply that energy by ~3-4x and you have the energy of a modern 5.56.

>>34144707
Cover is generally used for stopping bullets. Why am I behind cover if some retard is running at me with a sword and I can just piss out 15 meters of fire?

>>34144718
Yet a plat surface can still deflect the bullet at certain angle, creating ricochet.

That's how much energy is needed for the electromagnetism field.

File: img000017.png (597KB, 1073x1523px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 1073x1523px

>>34144680
Do you know how many bullets can be fired in a second?
Do you know KE /= power output?
Are you aware of how long it takes for a man to reach peak velocity?
I thought you were talking about melee weapons, is your imagined battlefield now a bunch of men doing pic related?

>>34144722
So you aren't in cover? Great, because I would be.

Having fun throwing flames all over the places.

File: 1346196413762.png (83KB, 377x377px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 377x377px

>>34144725
Do you know how much energy it would take to change the vector of something moving as fast as a bullet in time to make it miss its target?

>>34144741
Apparently, a flat surface at certain angle.

>>34144731
You wouldn't be in cover, you will be running in a straight line towards the guy with a flamethrower.

A state tacitly known as not being in cover.

>>34144754
There's nothing stopping me from having cover.

I'm gonna charge you when I'm in 10 meters or less.

>>34144725
>a plat surface can still deflect the bullet at certain angle
>That's how much energy is needed for the electromagnetism field.
You clearly do not understand how magnetic fields work. The further you get from the source of the magnetic fields, the stronger the source needs to be by about four times. So assuming your magic field is creating a zone of, say 2 meters around the device that would be able to "deflect" a rifle round, you would have to generate a field at the device itself exponentially stronger than at the point you want to "deflect" the projectile. So instead of just 1800 joules of energy, you're talking about an excess of 10000 joules of energy per "deflection."

File: 1436915503785.jpg (43KB, 337x404px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 337x404px

>>34144747
A simple
>I don't know
will do

>>34144762
>There's nothing stopping me from having cover.
The flame-thrower

>>34144763
That sounds like something a portable nuclear device can handle no?

And not all bullets are gonna hit the force field anyway.

>>34144664
>>34144700
>Ask for energy
>Answers with an actual physical object
Hurr durr fuck my face I'm an illiterate retard who failed school

Her'es a hint, since you have a single digit IQ:
You need to answer with a number and a "joules"

>>34144774
The flame thrower magically shoots over wall now?

Unless you are depriving me of oxygen by burning the air around me of course.

File: 1488739218904.jpg (91KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x720px

>>34144789

>>34144788
How much is the energy of an angled metal plate?

>>34144796
Sumimasen?

File: 1436230887432.jpg (37KB, 348x342px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 348x342px

>>34144798
How green is J S Bach's Air on the G string?

>>34144807
I do not know.

File: 1449978637055.jpg (36KB, 303x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 303x400px

>>34144798
I'm glad you agree that your idea is stupid!

After all, it's impossible to cut a metal plate capable of deflecting bullets with a sword

>>34144762
What kind of battlefield are you imagining here? When is there ever going to be a constant source of cover from your starting point to my starting point until you're within 10 meters of me? And again I say 15 meters of flame. You still die in this scenario

>>34144840
Modern combat so urban scenario with lot of debris going around.

>And again I say 15 meters of flame. You still die in this scenario
In 10 meters, I can dash and kill you just fine while you are taking time to aim.

>>34144835
But...it's...possible?

>>34144855
>>34144865
psssh...nothin personnel...kid...

>>34144855
Jesus Christ you're a genius. I just realized how unstoppable a sword is against modern weaponry at close range. Fuck, if every mujahideen just hid inside every building in Fallujah with a sword and waited for the Marines to come clear the room, an entire battalion could have been wiped out in a day's time. Why didnt they think of this?

>>34143572
>watched

Pleb

>>34144872
To be frank, assault rifles work in that range. But the force field exists.

Your flame thrower is slow, inaccurate, fires in a cone, and has bad way to aim.

>>34144872
thank god they dont watch anime then, huh?

>>34144835
>After all, it's impossible to cut a metal plate capable of deflecting bullets with a sword
BAKA GAIJIN KNOW NOTHING OF MY GRORIOUS KATANA MADE FOLDED A BILLION TIMES NIPPONESE STEEL.

>>34144785
>That sounds like something a portable nuclear device can handle no?
1 Watt = 1 joule/second
Taking into account that a bullet impact is FAR less than a second, we'll just assume .01 seconds for the transfer of energy, so that's 1800 joules/.01 seconds, or 180000 joules/second. That's 180 KW of energy at the point of impact using VERY conservative numbers.That's 180KW approximately 2 meters from the source of the field, so you're looking at many tens of megawatts of energy in "deflecting a single projectile. You'd need, at the very least, a modern municipal nuclear reactor to maintain such a field.

>>34144892
Because only anime has sword fight, am I right?

>>34144904
the only ones that matter anyhow

File: 1383217689660.jpg (67KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 300x300px

>>34143533

>rape "survivor"

>>34144889
>flame thrower is slow, inaccurate, fires in a cone, and has bad way to aim.
You keep saying this, but repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.

>>34144910
I'm sorry, what was that?

>>34144920
There are reasons people don't use flame thrower anymore, and there's a reason they are not mainstay infantry weapons.

File: 1448743580811.png (406KB, 1010x481px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1010x481px

>>34144923
>Image is of nothing

>>34144923
THE ONLY ONES THAT MATTER.

KEY THE CAR KEY OUT YOUR EAR SON AND LISTEN UP.

>>34144928
Yes, it was clearly because swords are superior.

>>34144728
>Do you know how many bullets can be fired in a second?
~13 from an AR15, a bit under 3 seconds to empty a common 30 round mag.
>Do you know KE /= power output?
Of course, but I can't be assed to calculate the exact force a bullet impact causes on an object since Google doesn't give me exact measurements on either how long a bullet impacts something, or how much it's squashed when hitting a hard surface. Also too lazy to go look at cartridge pressures and bullet sizes and whatnot. Too lazy and dumb, essentially.
>Are you aware of how long it takes for a man to reach peak velocity?
Velocity of the man is inconsequential, since he wouldn't even be moving in the first place, but trying to stay still against the bullets, or atleast unaffected by them, pushing against "wall", so it's about force. I just used the energy of a jogging man to give some implication of how weak a bullet actually is, since anon seemed to think they're something especially powerful. After all, people don't go flying when their plates get shot at, like they do in the movies. If you're braced against the shot at all, you won't move one bit.
>I thought you were talking about melee weapons, is your imagined battlefield now a bunch of men doing pic related?
I'm sorry for misleading you, but I'm not OP.

>>34144889
It's not a sniper rifle. How long do you need to acquire a katana wielding manlet, squeeze, and sweep?

>>34144928
But people do us flamethrowers in the modern day.

>>34144942
Swords aren't used anymore because of the range advantage of bullets.
>>34144950
Maybe in China.

>>34144945
Like maybe 2 or 3 seconds.

Enough for a dash and kill bruv.

>>34144944
>All this pseudo-science and butthurt
The question is very simple, does a man have the same power output as bullets?
tldr the anser is no.

File: 1494215393555.gif (223KB, 350x340px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 350x340px

>>34144693
>So they use their sharp edge as weapons, do they not?
Yes.
>Do you consider sharp edge as melee weapon?
Absolutely not. A melee weapon is by definition any weapon that is used in hand-to-hand combat. The drones don't even have hands, they just pick up speed and ram into things.
>Wut? Weapon that engages in melee is a melee weapon.
No it's not, you fucking retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melee_weapon
>A melee weapon is any manner of weapon used in hand-to-hand combat. The term melee originates in the 1640s from the French word mêlée, which refers to hand-to-hand combat, a close quarters battle, a brawl, a confused fight, etc
The drones are used from a great distance by their operators, so in no way are they a melee weapon.
>I'm talking about a force field that can deflect bullet and projectile by turning away their vectors.
Turning away their vectors what? Have you been watching Raildex for this bullshit or do you not understand how momentum works? How exactly do you suppose the forcefields would impart the change in direction on them? Electromagnetics, pushing them away through the force imparted by a magnetic field? Force magic that pushes them away? Gravity manipulation? Space-time magic? Or just bullshit Accelerator stupidity of hurrtheirvectorsgotherenow.

>This way bullets do not work, as well as flying knives. I'm saying if all your drones can do is ramming instead and cannot re-adjust their vectors, they would be useless too?
No, they would be DRONES, not missiles. As I said they can fly around and move as they need to, but their primary method of engagement is ramming.

>>34144970
OK, I quit, it's been a bore.

>>34144967
>does an undefined amount of work have the same power output as another undefined amount of work
Did you not pass high school or something, anon?

File: Madoka.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34144675
Yeah, I saw that already. It's knives, not swords. And that leads to people picking up swords because those beat knifes. So where does this lead us? Probably with a sword in one hand for range and a gun in the other for getting into the shield, or a weapon that combines both.

A gun specifically designed for Dune shield fighting would be more deadly than both knife and sword. The force of the muzzle blast being contained in the shield and giving the opponent a set of burst ear drums even if the shot misses his body is enough of an advantage already. I would imagine the firearm being adapted to fire upon muzzle pressure or an electronic trigger, so it could be poked through the shield from a pole and easily fired.

Hell, since we're assuming crazy tech is in play, it could be a bomb designed to automatically fire once it detects that it has been passed through a shield. It could be a reasonably sized bomb, too, since the person's own shield (not to mention your own) will protect you. There's no real reason to assume the shields in Dune would make everyone would go back to swords. People would theorise and think of better ways to fight using either existing things or new technology, like we are doing.

>>34145034
>Manpower and bullets not having a defined amount of work
How sweet, it's trying to act intelligent

File: 1495972997399.jpg (139KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1280x1024px

>>34145053
>"bullets"
>"man"
>defined
I guess you really are stupid then.

File: 1473217270291.gif (1MB, 480x351px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x351px

>>34145057
It doesn't matter what "man" or what "bullet" you choose, the answer's going to be the same.
Literally autism

>>34143542
Overshields when?

>>34145036
This doesn't work because it's much easier to hit shit with a sword than a gun at close range.

The fact you can swing and the sword being longer means it has more of an impact area.

>>34145095
> it's much easier to hit shit with a sword than a gun at close range.
You keep saying this, but repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.

>>34145107
It's literally true because when you miss with the first shot, you are fucking done.

The sword has less chance to miss because it has bigger surface area.

>>34145095
>This doesn't work because it's much easier to hit shit with a sword than a gun at close range.

Circular reasoning much?

>>34145134
See >>34145121

>>34145121
I have issues with
>much easier
Tell me in what possible world it's going to be possible to miss something 3 feet away. I'll be waiting. inb4 anime

>>34145144
People have missed at point blank before.

Let alone 3 feet.

>>34145121
>Miss shot
>Oh wait it's in a shield
>Round activates the memetic ballistics of a .22 inside a skull and rebounds until the person in the shield is swiss cheese

You need to stop with the sword fantasies already.

>>34145139
Responding to yourself for (you)s is poor form.

>>34145153
People have missed at point blank with melee weapons too. Your point?

>>34145157
By the time it ricochets, you are already stabbed and bleeding m8.

Never mind the point of the shield is that it deflects the bullet outta the shield, not inside it.

>>34145153
Not that anon but same with swords.

Is this a troll thread?

>>34145168
My point is it's less likely to miss with a melee weapon at point blank.

In any case, even in the event of a miss, the weapon will always travel closer to you, while the bullets will keep speeding away.

>>34145169
Oh have you invented a smart energy shield? Shit I didn't know that's how it worked... Oh wait it's not a real thing so you can literally move the goalposts as far as you want to keep from having your delusions broken.

Also someone with a readied sword vs a readied firearm.... gee I wonder who will win.
God damn britfags ruining my proud american morning

>>34145177
Everything is a troll thread if it gets your brain nogging.

>>34144004
So it will induce a current into the bullet as it passes through the shield? Neat.

>>34145153
People have won the lottery before, too. Point blank shots are the highest probability shots in all of marksmanship, if gun courses are anything to go by. SAS that are deprived of sleep for 2 days still have near 100% hit rates for targets at room range. You are making the mistake of thinking people who are not in the state of mind for killing are the same as people who are already switched on.

>>34145178
Not that much less likely, making the entire point null.

>>34145178
>My point is it's less likely to miss with a melee weapon at point blank.
Do you have any experience shooting guns or swinging swords. And no, the pvc bow you made doesn't count.

>>34145183
>Oh have you invented a smart energy shield? Shit I didn't know that's how it worked... Oh wait it's not a real thing so you can literally move the goalposts as far as you want to keep from having your delusions broken.
It works by deflecting the bullet outta the shield anon.
>Also someone with a readied sword vs a readied firearm.... gee I wonder who will win.
Wanna try? At 3 feet?

>>34145183
>Oh wait it's not a real thing so you can literally move the goalposts as far as you want to keep from having your delusions broken.
Wait, you mean the point of this thread isn't seeing OP tie himself in knots as he tries to deflect all the criticisms?

>>34145190
No, it's much more likely because the sword simply has bigger surface area.
>>34145192
I have shot guns and swing my machete.

In close quarter, I'm gonna stick to my machete.

>>34145194
>Wanna try? At 3 feet?
Yes. Give me a handgun and I will have five fucking holes through your chest cavity before you're even in position to swing at me. At best we both die, but there is no way in hell you're coming out of it alive.

>>34145199
>Wait, you mean the point of this thread isn't seeing OP tie himself in knots as he tries to deflect all the criticisms?
As always when it comes to these people with their "clever" ideas, like gliderfag, bbfag, armourfag and whatever other ones there are.

>>34145205
Oh, so you are too afraid at doing it at 3 feet?

>At best we both die, but there is no way in hell you're coming out of it alive.
Naw, you won't aim with a sword in your torso.

>>34143619
The slow blade pierces the shield.

>>34145210
Or you know, like guns.

I bet in medieval times, people would see repeating guns as magic.

>>34145215
But how do you get the sword in my torso when you've been shot at least thrice already.

>>34145194
> Also someone with a readied sword vs a readied firearm.... gee I wonder who will win.
> Wanna try? At 3 feet?

This is literally a training scenario. Not a fun or optimum one, but common. He is going to be moving backwards firing center mass with a tucked pistol while you must advance while taking rounds to your torso.

>>34145228
Oh, with your magic gun that is faster than a split second lunge?

>>34145223
More like war-winning magic.
Also, I don't know what you're smoking, repeating guns were attempted practically from the inception of the gun.

>>34145230
Oh, so he's gonna move backwards while eating a lunge right at his torso?

What's next, is he going to teleport behind me?

>>34143516
>overloading said shield with volume of fire or weapons made to penetrate or overload said shield
Vs.
>Just fucking charge him and hope for the best, they came up with these shield breaking swords but cant make shield breaking bullets with the same properties.

>>34145239
Oh, your magic Usain Bolt legs that is faster than a trigger pull?

>>34145242
You know, just like magic and alchemy?

>>34145245
Be honest, are you actually a cripple?

>>34145215
>>34145201
Wow this is edgy as fuck. People train to shoot until the threat stops, so by the time you've said 'go' and taken your first step you've already been shot 10 times. I don't know what your sword congested mind is thinking but the '3 foot' or 21 foot rule only applies to someone with a hidden blade knowingly closing the distance between someone with a holstered and unreadied pistol.

Jesus christ I cannot explain this enough; you have no idea what you're talking about and will be shot.

Is a machete good indoor? Yeah better than most things
Is it better than a readied handgun? No, fuck off.

Shields aren't real by the way.

File: 1483415089320.png (108KB, 506x380px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 506x380px

>>34145245
>Oh, so he's gonna move backwards while eating a lunge right at his torso?
Yes and keep firing regardless of if you've succesfully stabbed him through the lung, or even the heart.

>>34145252
Yes, don't need usian bolt legs with a lunge at 3 feet with a longsword at the ready.

>>34145258
Hmm, I see, I get it now (?)

File: 1482606701093.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>34145261
>Wow this is edgy as fuck.
It's bait, anon.

>>34145261
I dunno, just try it m8.

The police stays at 5 feet at maximum for a ready pistol vs a hidden knife, not even counting a knife at the ready.
>>34145262
Yep, firing into the air, twitching and bleeding out.

>>34145264
I fence and even a lightning fast thrust (which is actually really surprisingly fucking fast to an amateur) is nowhere fast enough to avoid getting shot.

>>34145259
Can a cripple use a sword, i wonder?

>>34145282
It's enough to avoid being successfully fire at.
>I fence
Proof?

>>34145276
Nah I know, just enjoying my morning. Also what is up with that picture.
>>34145277
Seriously? You'd have to be a retard to be this delusional. Now if you wanted to maybe sneak attack it'd be different.

>>34145307
At 3 feet, it's just a lunge away to kill.

I'm able to take that chance, are you afraid?

>>34145316
A 3 feet it's just a finger twitch to kill.
I'm able to take that chance, are you afraid?

>>34145339
Yeah, let's do it bro.

File: IMG_4142.jpg (80KB, 848x417px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 848x417px

These sword loving retards remind me of that force field master video where the guy thinks he has the magical ability to deflect any punch but when they set it up, he gets the shit beat out of him. Some of you just need a little dose of reality in your lives.

>>34144741
Mechanical engineering major here

Technically, it wouldnt take any energy at all. A change in direction does not constitute work done (E=F * d)

That doesnt mean that it WOULDNT take energy, but that energy would be completely process specific, since the minimum energy required would be zero

>>34145356
Yeah, like a sword lunge in your torso.

Seriously, gun niggers and their so-believed invincibility.

Thank fucking good, maybe this retard festival will go away. Why everyone decided to indulge a mentally handicapped man and his retarded pipe dream is beyond me but you probably made another day in the group home a little more special.

>>34145364
>>34145316
lmao it's not about invincibility, which apparently you think you'll be.
It's about the reality of someone with a gun shooting you while you walk towards them with a fucking sword lol

>>34145357
Err, the D in W=F*D stands for distance moved, you know? This isn't even degree level physics, it's high school physics, you can stop pretending you do a degree/

>>34145388
>implying I'd walk
>teleports behind you
Heh

>>34145387
Some people just want to watch the world burn anon.

Seriously though, I love it when these kind of threads show up because you can see the cogs trying to move and the OP just doing such stupid outlandish things to make it seem convincing.. it's like a soap opera, really.

>if I say this ill get replies
>if I get replies that means people care
>if people care I must have trolled them
>if i've trolled them I must be a good troll because there are 40 people in this thread all making fun of me
It's really a vicious circle. Sometimes I troll, sometimes I help trolls, sometimes I just bait and leave knowing i've done my job... It's a calling.

>>34145387
The quality of /k/ is so low nowadays these threads are actually the best threads.

>>34144789
>Thinks a flamethrower wouldn't wreck his shit even behind cover

Holy fuck, no one can be this fucking retarded.

>>34145406
>1030 est on 4chan on saturday
>'man /k/ is so shit now what happened'
... it's 10 in the morning on 4chan on a saturday... hello newfag.

>>34145437
>night /k/ is better
Uh sure bro, whatever you say.

>>34145437
/k/ is always shit though. It's infested with Americans.

>>34145388
>walk
>at 3 feet
I don't think you understand how short a distance that is.

A sword alone is already what? 1.2m?

>>34145447
Well that's not what I said at all, but it is the morning of the weekend... meaning more european losers are sitting on their computers during mid day shit posting...
I mean if you don't understand this it's cool but jesus you're dense.

>>34145404
I love it when people call serious ideas baits.

>>34145461
>>34145401
... it's a 21 foot rule, and obviously that post was saying if they knew you had a weapon why the fuck would they let you be within 3ft of them?

You guys are fucking delusional. Have people been stabbed while carrying? you bet your ass
Is someone carrying not going to see you with a fucking sword? What?

>>34144540
Not that anon, but holy shit kid you're retarded.
>swinging a 2-3 lb sword 3+ feet.
>pulling a trigger 1/2 to 1/4 inch.
There's a reason melee dosen't happen anymore.

>>34145469
While the ideas might be serious, they're still plain fucking retarded and go to show just how ignorant or stupid the one making them is.

>>34145469
Sometimes those serious ideas are so pants on head retarded that the only response is that they must be bait. It has to be bait because no one is this stupid tier stuff. The people who post things like that and are serious about it should really get off the internet and take a cold look at their lives.

>>34145475
Because from the beginning I have said it to be 3ft?

Why the fuck do everyone force it to be 21 ft?

>Is someone carrying not going to see you with a fucking sword? What?
What? The point here is to see who's faster at 3 ft range, a sword thrust or a trigger finger?

>>34145464
Actually, the quality of /k/ noticeably rises when a euro-specific holiday happens. As it turns out, we are the shitposters.

>>34145429
Apparently OP doesn't realize the old M2 flamethrower from WWII had a roughly forty meter range and could shit hot liquid death into a machine gun slit on a bunker. Getting behind a low wall is a good way to end up having flaming shit spray all over you. Heaven forbid a futuristic version of a flamethrower that may have several times the range. Also OP seems to completely ignore the possibility of the futuristic technology or rediscovery of magic that powers his autism field also making its way into weapons design.
Said forcefield could be bypassed by micro grenade launchers with warheads that trigger on field 'impact', high energy portable LASERs or directed energy weapons like a particle cannon. Hell the MARAUDER could make a surprise reappearance and forcefields could be brought down by bolts of high energy plasma from several hundred meters.

>>34145479
>swinging
>thrusting
Jesus what?

>There's a reason melee dosen't happen anymore.
Melee doesn't happen anymore because you can shoot people at 300m.

But really, at 3 fucking feet? Are you gonna claim you are invincible with a gun if the other guy has a longsword at 3 fucking feet?

>>34145493
Because there is no 3ft rule, you just shat it out of your ass.

>>34145505
I also don't realize that flamethrower is an inaccurate, slow and cumbersome weapon.

>>34145510
>Are you gonna claim you are invincible with a sword if the other guy has a gun at 3 fucking feet?

>>34145512
So you are gonna backpedal now?

Within 3 feet, the guy with the sword is gonna perform a lunge at the other torso, no matter if the other guy has his gun out or not.

>>34145520
No, I don't, but there's a good chance I'm gonna gut him before he even hits me.

>>34145517
>You keep saying this, but repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.

>>34145493
Trigger, based on 1" vs 36" travel distance.

It's a moot point if you were just concealing a 4" knife. Then you could just stab the guy a couple of times before he knew you were there. Scum bags across the glove have embraced concealable weapons. Why haven't you? Too noble and pure?

>>34145517
Yeah, luckily there's a dozen other blokes with more accurate, faster and less cumbersome weapons with the flamethrower guy.

>>34145533
It is true though.

It's also a hazard weapon that is not gonna be used by everyone.

>>34145525
Within 3 feet, the guy with the gun is gonna perforate the other torso, no matter if the other guy has his sword out or not.

File: 20170528_234727.jpg (43KB, 276x280px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 276x280px

>>34145215
Stop. Go back to >>>/a/

>>34145536
Which are negated by electromagnetism shield, my friend, which is why they are using flamethrower.

>>34145539
For the purposes of the thread, it's none of these things. It might be compared to other weapons, but compared to a sword at ten feet, it's gold. not to mention the rather dubious "friendly fire" claims.

>>34145549
But the blokes are using special, particle driver weaponry that penetrate the shield.

>>34145541
Yeah, before or after his torso is gut and his hand holding his wound?
>>34145535
Because why the fuck would I need to?

At 3 feet, you are gonna be dead with the knife or the sword.

Not even Instructor Zero can safely say he's gonna survive a melee attack at 3 feet.

>>34145549
>Which are negated by electromagnetism shield
so is your sword, which is negated even harder.

>>34145563
Yeah, before or after your torso is a sieve and your hand is holding your wound?

>>34145460
>/k/
>weapons
>Americans shitting up /k/.
Don't make me call the police about your butter knives Nigel.

>>34145562
Oh, so my shield is broken through his imaginary weapon.
>>34145554
It's hard to aim a flamethrower, and yes, if everyone uses a flamethrower, there's going to be more chance of friendly fire.

A sword is a quicker and more accurate weapon, not to mention lighter.

>>34145564
Not really, because I can readjust the vector of my sword.
>>34145576
Nah, I think my sword is already stuck to your torso and I'm busy twisting it.

>>34145517
They're accurate enough to fire into bunker firing ports, fast enough to catch people moving and have a lot longer range than the length of a sword thrust.
Let's just ignore the idea that there are a number of currently experimental or theoretical weapon systems that could ventilate a man inside of his forcefield with little difficulty. Unless we just handwave everything and say the forcefield is powered by a miniature Gandalf inside of a box and "A wizard did it".

>>34145581
>It's hard to aim a flamethrower,
Which one is it?
The flamethrower has a 20 degree cone of fire, or it's hard to aim?
You can't claim both.

>>34145588
>Not really, because I can readjust the vector of my sword.
A vast amount of energy is needed to deflect a bullet. A man pressing or swinging his sword is barely noticeable by comparison. Do you even know what the power output of a human is?

>>34145589
It's not really to hire into bunker firing ports with a cone weapon.

>fast enough to catch people moving
Away from you.
>and have a lot longer range than the length of a sword thrust.
At the cost of being slower, hard to aim and more cumbersome.
>Let's just ignore the idea that there are a number of currently experimental or theoretical weapon systems that could ventilate a man inside of his forcefield with little difficulty.
Please do share.

>>34145579
>Nigel
>implying I'm a fucking Bong.