Reasons to use melee weapons in a science fiction setting

[Husky_Khan]

Handy for plot devices involving teleportation, interference in the operation of advanced weapons, or weird projectile/energy shielding etc as well.

And in case you need to beat mutinous cretins into submission to establish dominance or have a knife fight for command position or other silliness.

 

[Deleted member]

They also work underwater, and in a vacuum, though zero-g momentum issues are a right royal pain to deal with.

This is why I love the Abh. You must watch Seikai no Senki sometime.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

How about a non-realistic or practical answer

Because it’d be fucking awesome

Like seriously I’d love to be that guy who charges a tank while riding an anti-gravity motorcycle and using a sword with an energy field that enables it to cut through things at the atomic level

 

[Husky_Khan]

Classic and relevant meme.

 

[Lanmandragon]

How about a non-realistic or practical answer

Because it’d be fucking awesome

Like seriously I’d love to be that guy who charges a tank while riding an anti-gravity motorcycle and using a sword with an energy field that enables it to cut through things at the atomic level

There was a British soldier in WW2. Who carried a longbow and a freaking claymore into battle. Can't recall his name but I'm sure someone wilk post it. The guy was a hard mother.

 

[Husky_Khan]

There was a British soldier in WW2. Who carried a longbow and a freaking claymore into battle. Can't recall his name but I'm sure someone wilk post it. The guy was a hard mother.

 

[Laskar]

There's another aspect to it: stealth. A gun makes a lot of noise. Futuristic energy-weapons might too.

Also: you might not want to go shooting at people with a disruptor-pistol while in the engine room of a spaceship.

To quote Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels:

"Also, I think knives are a good idea. Big, fuck-off shiny ones. Ones that look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good, because they don't make any noise, and the less noise they make, the more likely we are to use them. Shit 'em right up. Makes it look like we're serious. Guns for show, knives for a pro."
...
"Soap, is there something about your past we should know?"

As for why melee weapons are viable in a science fiction setting, I think Halo offers a pretty good answer.

Despite what some of the stupider EU novels posit, the Covenant Energy Sword does not rely on a physical blade for cutting power. It is a thermal lance that will burn through tank armor. When it is de-energized, it collapses into a compact hilt that can be stored in a belt.

The warriors who carry it are armored and sheathed in energy shields that will deflect rifle fire, and they greatly value martial prowess.

In other words, it's a melee weapon with none of the drawbacks of a metal blade, and it's in the hands of the kind of people who will want to use it.

There was a British soldier in WW2. Who carried a longbow and a freaking claymore into battle. Can't recall his name but I'm sure someone wilk post it. The guy was a hard mother.

Jack Churchill.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

They also work underwater, and in a vacuum, though zero-g momentum issues are a right royal pain to deal with.

This is why I love the Abh. You must watch Seikai no Senki sometime.

Oh, I hate zero G. Inertia is a cast iron bitch if there's no gravity well. I've only done it in the simulator as a kid at Space Camp, but hell no. You spend a lot of your attention and energy fighting Newton. It's extremely exhausting.

To quote Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels:

"Also, I think knives are a good idea. Big, fuck-off shiny ones. Ones that look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good, because they don't make any noise, and the less noise they make, the more likely we are to use them. Shit 'em right up. Makes it look like we're serious. Guns for show, knives for a pro."
...
"Soap, is there something about your past we should know?"

Bayonets have been that way almost since the get go. They were very rarely used to kill, but they were very much a psychological weapon. There's something different and a lot scarier about being stabbed than being shot, despite the fact that a stab or a slice can be a whole lot less lethal than shot. Men will stand shoulder to shoulder and pour fire into each other at 100 yards or less, but the sight of a determined body of men running at you, or presenting a solid wall of sharp metal at you, that inspires you to be somewhere else.

Don't see that changing. Not saying it's practical in an open battlefield, but close quarters killing is a different animal. Lots of utility for a blade even in a high-tech society.

 

[Scottty]

To quote Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels:

As for why melee weapons are viable in a science fiction setting, I think Halo offers a pretty good answer.

Despite what some of the stupider EU novels posit, the Covenant Energy Sword does not rely on a physical blade for cutting power. It is a thermal lance that will burn through tank armor. When it is de-energized, it collapses into a compact hilt that can be stored in a belt.

So... they're not saying it's a lightsaber, but...

And that warrior looks like... well, they're not calling it a Protoss Zealot, but...

 

[JagerIV]

Oh, I hate zero G. Inertia is a cast iron bitch if there's no gravity well. I've only done it in the simulator as a kid at Space Camp, but hell no. You spend a lot of your attention and energy fighting Newton. It's extremely exhausting.


Bayonets have been that way almost since the get go. They were very rarely used to kill, but they were very much a psychological weapon. There's something different and a lot scarier about being stabbed than being shot, despite the fact that a stab or a slice can be a whole lot less lethal than shot. Men will stand shoulder to shoulder and pour fire into each other at 100 yards or less, but the sight of a determined body of men running at you, or presenting a solid wall of sharp metal at you, that inspires you to be somewhere else.

Don't see that changing. Not saying it's practical in an open battlefield, but close quarters killing is a different animal. Lots of utility for a blade even in a high-tech society.

On the bayonet vs sword debate, I do recall the superiority of swords in melee over bayonets was part of the reason the Janasaries of the Ottoman Empire were resistant to switching over to bayonets. Especially in the more "skirmish" formation the Janasaries preferred to make use of individual skill rather than massed weight.

From a supply situation, carrying a sword is not much heavier than most historical bayonets: the M1917 bayonet weighs about half a kg, while a short sword weighs about 1 kg, a longer one about 1.5-2 kg.

In pure melee infantry fighting, a bayonet is just a really inferior spear. From my vague recollection, the thing that really let the bayonet win out was not in anti infantry close combat (after all, on an early musket you really aren't reloading or anything with fixed bayonets, so you generally have to draw it anyways before closing), but in its utility against cavalry: it was adiquate enough against cavalry that you could dispense with the pikemen and boost the firepower of the army by some 20-60% while also not being completely vulnerable to a cavalry charge.

Thus, I think in a scenario where you had melee but no cavalry, swordsmen would probably make a comeback to some degree.