That's the experience I've had with them, but I've only played with, not owned. People constantly associate thickness with robustness, and in terms of "breakability" that's probably completely accurate, but even for, maybe especially for, effective chopping, intelligent edge profiles are a must in relative ratio to blade geometry. From the Busse I've seen, and all the really "stout" bomber knives I've seen as a general rule I think they miss that mark, but that's just my opinion. Although, FWIW, I practically live on the trail normally, probably baton more wood in a year than the average house burns in their stove, and I've run into more than one top tier chopper that's about equivalent to using blunt rebar in real world outdoors use.
From a combat perspective? I can't say, I think it depends a lot on your "perception" of how knife combat plays out.
I'd be really curious to see a Bark River knife that was made to the same dimensions as one of those Busse beasts compared in one of those torture testing regimes, since they're another company famous for their meticulous HT. Although I think their biggest knife is probably around the thickness of the smallest Busse. So it'd just be apples and oranges.
I really find some of the busse designs compelling, but I've never been able to justify buying any since I just don't think they're built for what I use knives for, even though there seems to be this prevailing myth that they're the best at everything, being proliferated by the fan-boys.
