Rules are simple, 3 challenges:

I - Equipment

II - Training

III - Battle in 3 environments: Urban, Desert and valley.

Tanks and air support are available, no space ships.

Notes: Tau have only Fire Warriors, Shas'ui allowed per team + their equipment. Same goes for Earth troops, but this time we will count Russia, China, EU. French Foreign Legion and USA.

Let the battle commence....

My vote is for the tau in this one.

Brother Coa wrote:Rules are simple, 3 challenges:

I - Equipment

II - Training

III - Battle in 3 environments: Urban, Desert and valley.

Tanks and air support are available, no space ships.

Notes: Tau have only Fire Warriors, Shas'ui allowed per team + their equipment. Same goes for Earth troops, but this time we will count Russia, China, EU. French Foreign Legion and USA.

Let the battle commence....

Can the tau use drones?

nomotog wrote:
Can the tau use drones?

It is part of their equipment, 1 drone per squad yes?

Is this a joke?

A Fire Warrior has a rapid firing, highly accurate, long range, plasma-based small arm, armor on par with carapace (flak would almost certainly stop a modern weapon's round) and superior support in the form of Seeker missiles, Railguns, and drones.

The Fire Caste is literally bred for war. Their training surpasses anything we have today.

In Urban combat, Seeker missiles go around, and Railgun shots can go through any buildings in their way. Drones can be used to ferret out troops hiding inside.

Desert? Tau have superior range, and their tanks are skimmers; they could run circles around modern tanks. Valley? Box 'em in and shoot 'em up.

No, really, was this a joke?

Sounds fair.... Really this is no contest. The tau are the closest thing 40k has to a 21st century army. They have laser designation, drones, anything we can do they can do with lasers.

Obviously you guys missed/forgot the discussion about how if a chapter of Space Marines assaulted modern day Earth, what would happen. The end result was, people thought they would lose. No, Im not kidding.



Well, Im not saying we would just be laughing stocks here, we would do damage to them and could possibly win some battles. But I think their superior technology would win. Unless Jeff goldbloom showed up with his windows 95 laptop of course.

Also, yea the fire caste is bred for war, but that doesnt mean they are auto winners here. The Japanese in WW2 could be lumped into that same category too. I know Im a bit rusty on my history....but we beat them.

Their armor would be REALLY tough to get through as far as compared to modern flak vests. Im sure they would be far better at stopping our rounds. Id guess our modern stuff would be a 5+ at super best, but most likely a 6 save. But in saying that, their armor isnt super bad ass, we could still blow them up, and if our rounds hit the soft targets, they would die just as easily as we do now adays.


*cant spell*

What if the tau had an eternal with them? One good sniper round and now the tau are all crazy and demoralized.

nomotog wrote:What if the tau had an eternal with them? One good sniper round and now the tau are all crazy and demoralized.

Read the rules - no Ehterials or whatsoever. Not even battle-suits. Just FW and tanks...

In a vacuum, I'd say Tau have it. We win if we can punch and stab them, but hand to hand combat is a lot more common in 40k than in real life.

In equipment and environment, I give it to the Tau. I'd give training to the modern soldier since they're also trained in close combat as well as shooting.

KingCracker wrote:Obviously you guys missed/forgot the discussion about how if a chapter of Space Marines assaulted modern day Earth, what would happen. The end result was, people thought they would lose. No, Im not kidding.



Well, Im not saying we would just be laughing stocks here, we would do damage to them and could possibly win some battles. But I think their superior technology would win. Unless Jeff goldbloom showed up with his windows 95 laptop of course.

Also, yea the fire caste is bred for war, but that doesnt mean they are auto winners here. The Japanese in WW2 could be lumped into that same category too. I know Im a bit rusty on my history....but we beat them.

Their armor would be REALLY tough to get through as far as compared to modern flak vests. Im sure they would be far better at stopping our rounds. Id guess our modern stuff would be a 5+ at super best, but most likely a 6 save. But in saying that, their armor isnt super bad ass, we could still blow them up, and if our rounds hit the soft targets, they would die just as easily as we do now adays.


*cant spell*

It wasn't windows 95, it was OS 7 or 8.

If it was a 'first contact' type of engagement, the Tau totally have it, cause the earth troops would have no idea what they're up against. They'd try to take cover behind some walls and be surprised when a basic plasma round goes through 30 cm of solid rock to blow them apart, etc etc.

I'd also say the Tau would win on desert terrain no matter what because they're from a desert planet.

The Tau would absolutely MURDER us. Emphasis on the killing, maiming, ripping, shredding, and destructive part of MURDER. Our asses would be handed to us on a silver platter and we would either be fed to the kroot hounds or forced to work in mines till we died.

All hail the great Ethereals

Unless there is a Fluffy Pink Fuzzybunny planet in 40k, fielding an army, then any 40k army could utterly obliterate modern-day Earth.

100 Space Marines would have the planet on lockdown inside of a month.

I think we could totally take a chapter of space marines with the entire planet. Assuming they don't get to count on space-based support.

I mean... they have to run out of ammo some time, and then eventually even a space marine will get exhausted from carving through people in hand to hand, and at that point we could sort of tip them over and roll them into the sea.

On topic though - There's no way the Tau lose in the fight described.

Space marines can't get exhausted, they can sleep whilst they're awake. I don't know to be perfectly honest, should we manage to close in with the Tau then we may have a chance at beating them but it all really depends on taking out the tanks and advancing behind as much cover as possible so that the ground troops don't get shot. I would say we'd win in an urban environment but in a desert or a valley we'd be pretty much massacred seeing as they'd have a clear shot on us pretty much all the way down the battle line.

We could take them in HtH.

LOL!

My votes on the earth troopers. Between the USA and French foreign legions, who both have some badass soldiers, and the idea of initiative, soldiers who are used ti having some flexibility in their tactics, plus, we pop an ethereal, game over .

Commisar Von Humps wrote:My votes on the earth troopers. Between the USA and French foreign legions, who both have some badass soldiers, and the idea of initiative, soldiers who are used ti having some flexibility in their tactics, plus, we pop an ethereal, game over .

Then you're vote is misplaced. Severely misplaced. These are FIRE CASTE SOLDIERS, they're whole point in existing is to protect the Tau. Plus, there are no Ethereals, you have to actually read the original post for these threads to work.

Oh God, I just saw the profile picture, NOOOOO!

I - Tau

II - Tau

III - Tau, Tau and Tau

Must have missed that thread about Space Marines. The only effective weapon we have against them would be a direct nuclear strike or other similarly destructive explosive.

iproxtaco wrote:

Commisar Von Humps wrote:My votes on the earth troopers. Between the USA and French foreign legions, who both have some badass soldiers, and the idea of initiative, soldiers who are used ti having some flexibility in their tactics, plus, we pop an ethereal, game over .

Then you're vote is misplaced. Severely misplaced. These are FIRE CASTE SOLDIERS, they're whole point in existing is to protect the Tau. Plus, there are no Ethereals, you have to actually read the original post for these threads to work.

Oh God, I just say the profile picture, NOOOOO!

I - Tau

II - Tau

III - Tau, Tau and Tau

Must have missed that thread about Space Marines. The only effective weapon we have against them would be a direct nuclear strike or other similarly destructive explosive or a sharpened stick.

Added one last thing that will work against Tau.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

Commisar Von Humps wrote:My votes on the earth troopers. Between the USA and French foreign legions, who both have some badass soldiers, and the idea of initiative, soldiers who are used ti having some flexibility in their tactics, plus, we pop an ethereal, game over .

Then you're vote is misplaced. Severely misplaced. These are FIRE CASTE SOLDIERS, they're whole point in existing is to protect the Tau. Plus, there are no Ethereals, you have to actually read the original post for these threads to work.

Oh God, I just say the profile picture, NOOOOO!

I - Tau

II - Tau

III - Tau, Tau and Tau

Must have missed that thread about Space Marines. The only effective weapon we have against them would be a direct nuclear strike or other similarly destructive explosive or a sharpened stick.

Added one last thing that will work against Tau.

Security breach! How do you know about that? Who's your source? Submit to the Bureau and your family will not be harmed.

An imperial guardsmen armed with a sharp stick walks up to a fire warrior. *poke* The fire warrior explodes.

Gotta say, in a long ranged scrap we would lose badly.
However, get some SEAL's or the SAS in HtH and it's pretty much an auto win......

Or just call on Chuck Norris.

The Tau would win any day. Yes, trained current day humans would own them in close combat. But they wouldn't survive to close combat in the first place.

About the supposed marine chapter invading earth, I'd bet on current military. however powerfull marines may be individually, they're still only about a thousand of them, their power armor wouldn't stop an anti-tank missile, and they're enough launchers and personnel trained to use them to win a war of attrition against such low numbers. Besides, marines don't seem very good at fighting cunningly, and guerilla tactics such as burried explosives on the roads would hurt them.

Actually are equitment isnt all that bad.
I reall shouldnt mention this but i can build a rail pistol out of a camera and a car battery-rail tech is actualy quite easy-ok ive just cleared this leak up as i have no form of a death wish and i have no wish to suddenly vanish overnight with no trace. we have rail tech already their just scared to use it...
and i am also think you should know about that new SAS armour-they emptied 10 .50 round from a sniper into the same spot on it and it was undamaged...(this was leaked a while back)
finaly if i can ever get hold of the equitment i am quite capable of building a form of power/termie armour aswellas dreadknight equilvalents.

master of ordinance wrote:
and i am also think you should know about that new SAS armour-they emptied 10 .50 round from a sniper into the same spot on it and it was undamaged...(this was leaked a while back)

A vest capable of redistributing vast amounts of kinetic energy won't do squat against a pulse weapon.

nomotog wrote:Sounds fair.... Really this is no contest. The tau are the closest thing 40k has to a 21st century army. They have laser designation, drones, anything we can do they can do with lasers.

See the actual scenario people.

On the positive we have laser designation, drones, missiles and artillery. Who cares about this short ranged crap, call in the 155s and JDAMs! Death from above long before the tau even know we're within miles of them, and back in time to watch the game on TV.
Drone sees them coming. Aricraft drop satellite guided bombs from miles away. Artillery finishes off. Maybe we even send troops to police the bodies. This is no contest.

Worse to worse, tactical nuke. Don't even leave the bunker.

Tau.
A las pistol can blow a mans arm off. Now compare that too ours and thats a sniper rifle or shotgun the most powerful things we have. Now thats AP5 Str 3 is our best. The Tau have good enough armour too protect from that we dont have good enough armour against there weapons. Tau win everytime.

InquisitorVaron wrote:Tau.
A las pistol can blow a mans arm off. Now compare that too ours and thats a sniper rifle or shotgun the most powerful things we have. Now thats AP5 Str 3 is our best. The Tau have good enough armour too protect from that we dont have good enough armour against there weapons. Tau win everytime.

So what? A .223 is not as powerful as a .50 cal but it still kills you, especially when it has 5-10 of its buddies along.
More importantly, why are you thinking it gets to that.

Tau are reduced to dogfighting imperial aircraft. Our aircraft will dust them at distance. Once we have the air the Tau are done.
Further, what is in the Tau arsenal that can deal with incoming long range missiles, or even dumb artillery? Thats the proble m with 40K, take out the space craft and everything gets massacred by modern armies.

We'd be fethed like a prom date.

Tau wins vs. a 'light' company of moderns. There is absolutely no contest.

I appreciate the effort by the OP to present parameters, but the Tau are simply too advanced for the modern humans to have any effect... no matter what the 'Sci-Fi' channel and Science Fiction movies like 'Independence Day' or 'Battle L.A.' say about similar issues.

Uhlan wrote:Tau wins vs. a 'light' company of moderns. There is absolutely no contest.

I appreciate the effort by the OP to present parameters, but the Tau are simply too advanced for the modern humans to have any effect... no matter what the 'Sci-Fi' channel and Science Fiction movies like 'Independence Day' or 'Battle L.A.' say about similar issues.

blah blah. Again-how? how exactly do they stop a tac nuke dropped from an aircraft, coming at them in a missile, or fired from a good old Cold War era artillery tube?

Gamewise their weaponry equal but different to IG. IG wouldn't know a cruise missile from a hole in the ground. Outside of the occasional vortex missile their best weaponry, is strictly WWII variety.

Frazzled wrote:

Uhlan wrote:Tau wins vs. a 'light' company of moderns. There is absolutely no contest.

I appreciate the effort by the OP to present parameters, but the Tau are simply too advanced for the modern humans to have any effect... no matter what the 'Sci-Fi' channel and Science Fiction movies like 'Independence Day' or 'Battle L.A.' say about similar issues.

blah blah. Again-how? how exactly do they stop a tac nuke dropped from an aircraft, coming at them in a missile, or fired from a good old Cold War era artillery tube?

Gamewise their weaponry equal but different to IG. IG wouldn't know a cruise missile from a hole in the ground. Outside of the occasional vortex missile their best weaponry, is strictly WWII variety.

I think the application of tactical nuclear weaponry is outside the bounds of this thought exercise.

Also, the IG's weapons are not equal to ours.

Nope we're good.

Tanks and air support are available, no space ships.

Notes: Tau have only Fire Warriors, Shas'ui allowed per team + their equipment. Same goes for Earth troops, but this time we will count Russia, China, EU. French Foreign Legion and USA.

Let the battle commence....

We would win, if only because of the limitations of the OP. We would outnumber 100 Fire Warriors by a HUUUGE amount, without any support we can sit back and shell them to kingdom come, perhaps even launch a few air strikes or cruise/ballistic missiles depending on whether you want to watch the explosion or not.

There's also the issue of ammunition; without support, the FWs would run out before they've begun to take a toll on our forces.

We simply have far too much long-range and untargettable firepower for 100 FWs to counter.

Frazzled wrote:
blah blah. Again-how? how exactly do they stop a tac nuke dropped from an aircraft, coming at them in a missile, or fired from a good old Cold War era artillery tube?

The Sky Ray Missile Defense Gunship probably has a few ideas.

Avatar 720 wrote:We would win, if only because of the limitations of the OP. We would outnumber 100 Fire Warriors by a HUUUGE amount, without any support we can sit back and shell them to kingdom come, perhaps even launch a few air strikes or cruise/ballistic missiles depending on whether you want to watch the explosion or not.

There's also the issue of ammunition; without support, the FWs would run out before they've begun to take a toll on our forces.

We simply have far too much long-range and untargettable firepower for 100 FWs to counter.

Did you read the OP? 100 of us vs 100 of them.
We lose.
If we include tanks, we suddenly have against us flying, railgun-firing tanks as well as seeker missiles fired by markerlights.
I'd say we still lose
If we take air support, Tau get their far more advanced aircraft, piloted by creatures that have superior senses, reflexes and tolerance for forces involved in dogfighting. 40k aircraft are also armoured to far greater standard.
Tau also get Manta missile destroyers, which are still aircraft, and can most likely engage anything that could possibly hasrm them even from orbit. Where any tau aircraft can go and wait until they need to fight.
I'd say we still lose.

Half decent anti aircraft I'll grant you.
Is it noted for shooting down either incoming missiles or artillery? in 40K..no. in Epic..no. Next. Thats of course assuming it hasn't already been shot down by our plethora of fixed and flexible wing aircraft, or of course those incoming barrages if its playing land hugger.

Again, I'll grant Tau would be much tougher than IG as they are basically advanced humans and take some of our speed advantages away, but the 40K universe doesn't deal well in abstracts outside of a WWII context.

Kallimakus wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:We would win, if only because of the limitations of the OP. We would outnumber 100 Fire Warriors by a HUUUGE amount, without any support we can sit back and shell them to kingdom come, perhaps even launch a few air strikes or cruise/ballistic missiles depending on whether you want to watch the explosion or not.

There's also the issue of ammunition; without support, the FWs would run out before they've begun to take a toll on our forces.

We simply have far too much long-range and untargettable firepower for 100 FWs to counter.

Did you read the OP?

Yes. Did you realise that the '100 of us' is actually in the title, not the OP? So I made a small mistake, big deal. Get off your high horse.

Sorry, and my mistake. Although I find that 100 anything vs Earth to be somewhat ludicurous a scenario. Unless they are immune to nukes 100 anything wont stand much of a chance (Maybe 100 Titans but...)

I think the OP needs to clear up his original intention. When he said 'tanks and air support available' I interpreted that as available on the company level. If he meant ALL POSSIBLE support available, then of course 100 fire warriors will lose against nukes being dropped on their heads by stealth fighters at 30,000 feet, that's no contest (and a boring scenario to discuss). The 100 US marines don't even need to leave their barracks.

Of course thats available in an all context. If we planned on using nukes against the rooskies they would definitely be on the inventory against an alien invader.

But lets even back off that and go with non nuclear. 155s anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

InquisitorVaron wrote:Tau.
A las pistol can blow a mans arm off. Now compare that too ours and thats a sniper rifle or shotgun the most powerful things we have. Now thats AP5 Str 3 is our best. The Tau have good enough armour too protect from that we dont have good enough armour against there weapons. Tau win everytime.

Ummmmm, a well placed .357 will take your head clean off. Just ask Dirty Harry!

Seriously thou, I love it when people think that any of the modern day weapons won't do as much damage as a Lasgun.
Have you ever seen the effect a caseless round has on flesh? Even Tau body armour would struggle to hold back a clip from an AK47. Tau armour is designed with futuristic weapons in mind, Las, Beam etc. To that end, I feel that against an 'outmoded' solid slug weapon with a high enough calibre, it would crumble.

Look at a StormTroopers armour, probably the closest thing to Tau body armour we have seen 'in action'. This struggles to stop even a glancing hit from a Blaster (or Lasgun). How do you think it would fair compared to say, a Minigun or an LMG?
It wouldn't.
So in conclusion, and sitting firmly on the fence, I think we would both be screwed!

Even on a troop basis alone Tau come out on the short end. They strictly have personal arms. They have no heavies. They have no instruments of surpressive fire. They have skimmers that flit about at a speed of 3-4x human speed. Thats moped speed and easy to drop with antitank weaponry.

Props to Frazzled for the Ferris Bueller quote!

master of ordinance wrote:Actually are equitment isnt all that bad.
I reall shouldnt mention this but i can build a rail pistol out of a camera and a car battery-rail tech is actualy quite easy and if it came to it then they do have atleast 2 railgun tank prototypes in Britain. we have rail tech already their just scared to use it...
and i am also think you should know about that new SAS armour-they emptied 10 .50 round from a sniper into the same spot on it and it was undamaged...(this was leaked a while back)

And we get into the usual issues of immature technology. To get an effective rail weapon, we need lots of power, so big batteries. Which weight a ton. I heard of one US destroyer, with one of it's turrets replaced by a 8 Megajoules mass driver prototype, which make it a workable weapon. BUT, the thing need so much power that it couldn't be installed in anything smalller than a warship.

An infantry railgun? It would certainly require more batteries that an human can carry on his back, or it wouldn't be more advantageous than a gunpowder weapon due to lack of power.

finaly if i can ever get hold of the equitment i am quite capable of building a form of power/termie armour aswellas dreadknight equilvalents.

Without your powered armor being leashed with a power cable to an (big) external energy source, or without it being so slow and clumsy it would be a big, fat target and nearly useless? Sorry, not gonna happen anytime soon.

We do have the tech to make rail canons and powered armor. But it's not nearly refined enough to be more than prototypes and concept models for the moment.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Props to Frazzled for the Ferris Bueller quote!

The honor, is to serve.

Frazzled wrote:

Uhlan wrote:Tau wins vs. a 'light' company of moderns. There is absolutely no contest.

I appreciate the effort by the OP to present parameters, but the Tau are simply too advanced for the modern humans to have any effect... no matter what the 'Sci-Fi' channel and Science Fiction movies like 'Independence Day' or 'Battle L.A.' say about similar issues.

blah blah. Again-how? how exactly do they stop a tac nuke dropped from an aircraft, coming at them in a missile, or fired from a good old Cold War era artillery tube?

Gamewise their weaponry equal but different to IG. IG wouldn't know a cruise missile from a hole in the ground. Outside of the occasional vortex missile their best weaponry, is strictly WWII variety.

What kind of argument is that? Your argument is no better than mine then. A tac nuke? Why would a unit of 100 moderns have a Tac nuke? Is the combat in an arena owned by some otherworldly force that says 'Hey, ok bring 100 men equipped to the teeth and while your at it, ok, go outside your TO &E... defy your technological mandate even. Here ya are go fight to the death...' As I assume we are talking about book fluff and not the limitations of the forces based on the game which limits everything for the sake of a level playing field... er, more or less. Why limit the Tau to the game lists while we are allowing moderns to go outside their TO & E?

Why even have the exercise as expressed by the OP if such things can be considered? The Tau aren't slowed as far as I know and would not fear to close with the Moderns (what is a 5.56 or 7.62 round going to do against their armor?) to avoid their artillery assets (I'm sure the Tau have far superior EAPS technology) and so unless the moderns wish to sacrifice themselves completely to destroy the Tau it's pointless.

Lol, if you also think that in close combat the moderns are going to whip out their combat knives, clench them between their teeth and jump on the backs of the Tau while beating the midgets into submission, well...

Unlike many people here on the boards (I realize I'm not in an exclusive club, however.), I KNOW what moderns are capable of and while damn proud of my service, intellectually I can extrapolate that the Tau and their weaponry would devastate any modern force... ANY. This isn't the Zulus vs. the British or the American Indians vs. the US Cavalry those were close contests! Heck, it's more like the American Indians vs the MODERN US Cavalry.

A Tau APC, for example, would simply outrun a Bradley, LAV or, for some reason an M1A3 and I doubt that even the new guided kinetic rounds would have much effect on the Tau armor. After all, the Tau fight the IG and the Tau have designed weapons to pierce that armor and armor to defend themselves from those weapons. Do we think that ceramite armor from 40k years in the future as degenerate as it is, is equal to reactively protected modern laminate? Unless some author who writes the fluff decides to personally destroy my argument by insinuating that modern weapons can knock out a Tau vehicle with a 'what if' book. I think my argument stands.

The interesting thing is, the modern US military is nearing a technological cusp. They are getting close to operationally functional armored exoskeletons, next generation firearms, Railguns and heavily drone assisted units. We have tested EAPS technology with guided 50mm rounds for anti-artillery shell and anti-rocket attacks, but it is highly flawed as you might expect. Given another 20-25 years the modern US force will be completely unrecognizable.

Right now though, we would be relatively helpless against any force like the Tau.

true.
lets just splatter them with attrition.
unless of course they get dug in......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerivant wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
blah blah. Again-how? how exactly do they stop a tac nuke dropped from an aircraft, coming at them in a missile, or fired from a good old Cold War era artillery tube?

The Sky Ray Missile Defense Gunship probably has a few ideas.

missile defence as in its armed with missiles you fool.
and any way even it has to reload sumtime...

master of ordinance wrote:
missile defence as in its armed with missiles you fool.

Missile defense has a pretty clear definition; any system designed to destroy incoming missiles. It would make sense for the Sky Ray's main role to be shooting down atmospheric craft and incoming warheads.

Also, unprovoked insults are always funny. "Fool" is the weakest one I've gotten, though.

It shoots aircraft. Its a mobile launcher. So's an apache...er color me underwhelmed.

nothing in the codex or rules about shooting down incoming missiles or artillery.

Humans don't really have any advantages. Unlike the IG, the tau use modern tactics. They have there own version of laser detonators, and drones. They even have suppression fire with their carbines. I don't even know if you can give humans the advantage in melee. A fire warrior is bigger then a human and they come with pulse grenades (Flash grenades). Oh, don't forget EMP grenades.

If you're saying carbines are suppressive fire than all the humans would have suppressive fire. Again, you're worried about grenades and HTH?

Avatar 720 wrote:We would win, if only because of the limitations of the OP. We would outnumber 100 Fire Warriors by a HUUUGE amount, without any support we can sit back and shell them to kingdom come, perhaps even launch a few air strikes or cruise/ballistic missiles depending on whether you want to watch the explosion or not.

There's also the issue of ammunition; without support, the FWs would run out before they've begun to take a toll on our forces.

We simply have far too much long-range and untargettable firepower for 100 FWs to counter.

Did you read the main line?

It's ONLY 100 our troops vs. ONLY 100 Fire Warriors.
Beside that they can use their tanks and aircraft...And again - they are not fighting against entire planet, just small force of our troops...

And no nukes, if we really using them like that we would bomb ourself in 1963. So no nukes.

Frazzled wrote:If you're saying carbines are suppressive fire than all the humans would have suppressive fire. Again, you're worried about grenades and HTH?

Carbines have the pinning power, so I figure they can act as suppressive fire. And their drones have carbines. Fly a drone up pin the squad. As for HTH, anytime the tau are with in knife fighting range they can just throw out a pulse grenade. They don't even have to be timed because of their black light filter.

Any thing a modern army has, the tau has a better version of. Except for a few exceptions that aren't allowed in this hypothetical. Sniper rifles, commando teams. The tau has them, but we are limited to only what the fire warriors can do.

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you're saying carbines are suppressive fire than all the humans would have suppressive fire. Again, you're worried about grenades and HTH?

Carbines have the pinning power, so I figure they can act as suppressive fire. And their drones have carbines. Fly a drone up pin the squad. As for HTH, anytime the tau are with in knife fighting range they can just throw out a pulse grenade. They don't even have to be timed because of their black light filter.

Any thing a modern army has, the tau has a better version of. Except for a few exceptions that aren't allowed in this hypothetical. Sniper rifles, commando teams. The tau has them, but we are limited to only what the fire warriors can do.

Tau don't have:
heavy machine guns
light machine guns
heavy artillery (shell or rocket based)
light artillery
personal antitank weaponry
mortars
poison gas
air assets that survive an engagement

I want to know the scenario. Too many people who know nothing about combat go 'X's equipment is better than Y's equipment, therefore Y loses!', which is ignorant at best.


I want to know the ground. Are we city fighting? If so, how good are pulse rifles when it comes to walking round a corner and ending up face to face with a machete wielding Scotsman twice their size? If we're out in the open, does camo become an issue? How good are Tau sensors are picking out humans? How good is their tactical doctrine at night fighting? Is their command and control system good, or are they vulnerable to having the leader assassinated and faltering? What is their morale like? Are both sides well rested? Do they carry house to house fighting equipment? If so, what? How many grenades per soldier?

There are far too many factors here to work it into a simple equation of 'x beats y'.

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you're saying carbines are suppressive fire than all the humans would have suppressive fire. Again, you're worried about grenades and HTH?

Carbines have the pinning power, so I figure they can act as suppressive fire. And their drones have carbines. Fly a drone up pin the squad. As for HTH, anytime the tau are with in knife fighting range they can just throw out a pulse grenade. They don't even have to be timed because of their black light filter.

Any thing a modern army has, the tau has a better version of. Except for a few exceptions that aren't allowed in this hypothetical. Sniper rifles, commando teams. The tau has them, but we are limited to only what the fire warriors can do.

Tau don't have:
heavy machine guns
light machine guns
heavy artillery (shell or rocket based)
light artillery
personal antitank weaponry
mortars
poison gas
air assets that survive an engagement

Tau have superior Air Support. Poison gas? Super effective *sarcasm*. Artillery is not as effective as you make it out to be. No point in pounding a constantly moving target with superior armor. Even it would prove effective, since Tau have no equivalent, it's no available in this engagement. Light and heavy machine guns are outclassed by your average pulse rifle.

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you're saying carbines are suppressive fire than all the humans would have suppressive fire. Again, you're worried about grenades and HTH?

Carbines have the pinning power, so I figure they can act as suppressive fire. And their drones have carbines. Fly a drone up pin the squad. As for HTH, anytime the tau are with in knife fighting range they can just throw out a pulse grenade. They don't even have to be timed because of their black light filter.

Any thing a modern army has, the tau has a better version of. Except for a few exceptions that aren't allowed in this hypothetical. Sniper rifles, commando teams. The tau has them, but we are limited to only what the fire warriors can do.

Tau don't have:
heavy machine guns
light machine guns
heavy artillery (shell or rocket based)
light artillery
personal antitank weaponry
mortars
poison gas
air assets that survive an engagement

Heavey macgine guns- They have burst cannons. They come on their devilfish, so they can use them here.
Light machine guns- I think carbines fill this role. Might be wrong. Depends on if a machine gun is defined by RPF or what.
Heavy artillery- Seeaker missiles. Any tau vehicle can have them so they are available here.
Personal antitank weaponry- EMP grenades. Fuses blasters are suit only, so they are not available.
Mortars- I don't think the tau have these. seeker missiles are close, but they can't be carried by troops.
Poison gas- We don't even have this. The tau are aliens you can't just poison aliens. You have a better chance of poisoning them with water then gas
Air assets that survive an engagement- The tau have a lovely collection of air units. They are not in the codex, but some even come with there own drone wing men.

I'm always stunned to see how quickly people go to the "nuke" argument. There's absolutely 100% no way in feth anyone on earth is going to drop a nuclear weapon on a threat as a first response. We would respond with infantry, armoured cavalry and air support if anything.

After the Tau wipe the floor with all of that, they'll have spread out. By the time we finally go through all the channels to decide to nuke the Tau, they'd have moved on or would at least be prepared for it. I mean, honestly. Do you think that an advanced alien race with insanely advanced technology is not going to see a nuke coming and do SOMETHING about it?

nomotog wrote:Heavy artillery- Seeaker missiles. Any tau vehicle can have them so they are available here.

Missiles are not artillery. Not in the traditional usage of the word anyway.

Personal antitank weaponry- EMP grenades. Fuses blasters are suit only, so they are not available.

I'm sitting here looking at the principles of Electronic warfare as part of my dissertation, and I'm trying to figure out how an EMP pulse disables a normal diesel engine.

Poison gas- We don't even have this. The tau are aliens you can't just poison aliens. You have a better chance of poisoning them with water then gas

wat

War of the Worlds begs to differ. If its got lungs, it respires. If it respires, that means it must be used to breathing oxygen like humans (or they'll all die of suffocation long before weapons become a factor). If its used to breathing oxygen, poisonous gas lobbed by artillery will have the same effect as it would upon a human.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Wasabi wrote:I'm always stunned to see how quickly people go to the "nuke" argument. There's absolutely 100% no way in feth anyone on earth is going to drop a nuclear weapon on a threat as a first response. We would respond with infantry, armoured cavalry and air support if anything.

After the Tau wipe the floor with all of that, they'll have spread out. By the time we finally go through all the channels to decide to nuke the Tau, they'd have moved on or would at least be prepared for it. I mean, honestly. Do you think that an advanced alien race with insanely advanced technology is not going to see a nuke coming and do SOMETHING about it?

You know, the funny thing is, if you just push a small one out of aircraft, then no, I don't think they would see it coming. All your complicated gizmos dedicating ICBM's are useless against someone literally shoving one out the door.

Ketara wrote:

nomotog wrote:Heavy artillery- Seeaker missiles. Any tau vehicle can have them so they are available here.

Missiles are not artillery. Not in the traditional usage of the word anyway.

Personal antitank weaponry- EMP grenades. Fuses blasters are suit only, so they are not available.

I'm sitting here looking at the principles of Electronic warfare as part of my dissertation, and I'm trying to figure out how an EMP pulse disables a normal diesel engine.

Poison gas- We don't even have this. The tau are aliens you can't just poison aliens. You have a better chance of poisoning them with water then gas

wat

War of the Worlds begs to differ. If its got lungs, it respires. If it respires, that means it must be used to breathing oxygen like humans (or they'll all die of suffocation long before weapons become a factor). If its used to breathing oxygen, poisonous gas lobbed by artillery will have the same effect as it would upon a human.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Wasabi wrote:I'm always stunned to see how quickly people go to the "nuke" argument. There's absolutely 100% no way in feth anyone on earth is going to drop a nuclear weapon on a threat as a first response. We would respond with infantry, armoured cavalry and air support if anything.

After the Tau wipe the floor with all of that, they'll have spread out. By the time we finally go through all the channels to decide to nuke the Tau, they'd have moved on or would at least be prepared for it. I mean, honestly. Do you think that an advanced alien race with insanely advanced technology is not going to see a nuke coming and do SOMETHING about it?

You know, the funny thing is, if you just push a small one out of aircraft, then no, I don't think they would see it coming. All your complicated gizmos dedicating ICBM's are useless against someone literally shoving one out the door.

Missiles fill the same role as artillery just better.
As i understand it, modern battle tanks have a heavy amount of electronic components, but you should be able to tell us exactly what parts and such what they do.
Filters. The tau have been on a lot of worlds, they must have some way to avoid being war of the worlded.

Dr_Wasabi wrote:I'm always stunned to see how quickly people go to the "nuke" argument. There's absolutely 100% no way in feth anyone on earth is going to drop a nuclear weapon on a threat as a first response. We would respond with infantry, armoured cavalry and air support if anything.

After the Tau wipe the floor with all of that, they'll have spread out. By the time we finally go through all the channels to decide to nuke the Tau, they'd have moved on or would at least be prepared for it. I mean, honestly. Do you think that an advanced alien race with insanely advanced technology is not going to see a nuke coming and do SOMETHING about it?

They have problems against people who use pointed sticks and WWI era tanks. I'm not especially impressed by any of their abiliities except to die.

Frazzled wrote:Tau are reduced to dogfighting imperial aircraft.

Imperial aircraft is superior to ours in every way.

Can someone fill me in on what a LMG is. My guess is that it's role is to fire a steady stream of rounds to keep the enemy suppressed.

LGM? You mean LMG, a light machinegun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Obviously you guys missed/forgot the discussion about how if a chapter of Space Marines assaulted modern day Earth, what would happen. The end result was, people thought they would lose. No, Im not kidding.

That's a different situation than this.

1000 marines is not capable of feasibly holding a planet of this size against a population that wants to resist. Millions upon millions of Guardsmen could. Dunno how many Tau it would take, but probably quite a bit.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Tau are reduced to dogfighting imperial aircraft.

Imperial aircraft is superior to ours in every way.

Except for speed and ability to shoot at distance you are 100% correct. I'll give on G forces as we have no data on imperial craft and whether they have that incredibly high tech thing called a G suit.

nomotog wrote:Can someone fill me in on what a LMG is. My guess is that it's role is to fire a steady stream of rounds to keep the enemy suppressed.

Certainly:


A light machine gun may be defined either by the weapon or by its tactical role. It is used to fire short bursts, usually from a bipod; a sustained-fire mount such as a tripod is a characteristic of a medium machine gun. Some machine guns - notably general purpose machine guns - may be deployed either as a light machine gun or a medium machine gun. As a general rule, if a machine gun is deployed with a bipod it is a light machine gun; if deployed on a tripod it is a medium machine gun, unless it uses ammunition of .50 or 12.7 mm caliber or larger, making it a heavy machine gun. Modern light machine guns often fire smaller-caliber cartridges than medium machine guns, and are usually lighter and more compact.

Hope this clears it up!

Re Nuke argument:

- Tau remotely access internet via comms satellites etc
- Tau get reasonably good intel on our capabilities
- Tau laugh asses off that we can barely manage exterminatus on a small city, let alone planet
- Set up extensive air defence grid, every single bomber that gets within range of their sci-fi sensor equipment gets torn apart by drones etc
- 100 21c human elites get torn apart unless they manage to pull some seriously inventive ambush tactics to engage in melee

Frazzled wrote:Except for speed

They are optimized for fighting at mach 2. This does not include the speed of their afterburners etc. The Lightning is known to be incredibly maneuverable,. exceeded only by Eldar craft. (whom have super-futuristic technology that literally reduces inertia)

and ability to shoot at distance

The Imperium has missiles which outrange their artillery. Which itself outranges our modern day artillery. No, they have no lack of ability to kill at a distance.

Frazzled wrote:They have problems against people who use pointed sticks and WWI era tanks. I'm not especially impressed by any of their abiliities except to die.

A Leman Russ might look like a WWI era tank, but it contains most systems we would find in any modern tank, and many that we wouldn't. Its also pretty hard to destroy.
Tau don't 'struggle' against those. They point a railgun at it and watch the explosion. Tau are, in almost any scenario involving the IoM, heavily outnumbered, and have still managed to not lose too hard.
Any flaws in imperial tactics in comparison to ours is likely to be compensated by their far superior tech.

Ask yourself why Imperium uses such 'outdated' pieces of technology as a LRBT.
I think it's because there simply isn't anything that outperforms it in ease of production, durability and firepower.

I'd also like to point out that most poison gases that have been deployed in military context effect chemicals that transmit neurous signals, preventing air from reaching our lungs.
Other gases are corrosive.
Tau wear full body armour, which is likely to be proof against harmful chemicals. Their nervous system probably works on different chemicals so we woldn't have muvh luck there.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

nomotog wrote:Can someone fill me in on what a LMG is. My guess is that it's role is to fire a steady stream of rounds to keep the enemy suppressed.

Certainly:


A light machine gun may be defined either by the weapon or by its tactical role. It is used to fire short bursts, usually from a bipod; a sustained-fire mount such as a tripod is a characteristic of a medium machine gun. Some machine guns - notably general purpose machine guns - may be deployed either as a light machine gun or a medium machine gun. As a general rule, if a machine gun is deployed with a bipod it is a light machine gun; if deployed on a tripod it is a medium machine gun, unless it uses ammunition of .50 or 12.7 mm caliber or larger, making it a heavy machine gun. Modern light machine guns often fire smaller-caliber cartridges than medium machine guns, and are usually lighter and more compact.

Hope this clears it up!

Ok so it's just a gun that you need to deploy before firing. I don't think the tau have any gun like that, but their normal guns probably shoot as fast and have as much stopping power as a normal LMG. A LMG actually sounds like a libility rather then an asset.

I have to place my bets on the tau on this one.

A. they have way superior fire power to us, and as for hth they have they kroot to deal with us. their tanks will simply plug us with the rail guns/ ion cannons

B. they have better guns

C. they have better armour

D. they can go invisible

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Except for speed

They are optimized for fighting at mach 2. This does not include the speed of their afterburners etc. The Lightning is known to be incredibly maneuverable,. exceeded only by Eldar craft. (whom have super-futuristic technology that literally reduces inertia)

and ability to shoot at distance

The Imperium has missiles which outrange their artillery. Which itself outranges our modern day artillery. No, they have no lack of ability to kill at a distance.

*Both the US and USSR have had interceptors better than that since probably before you were born. The Chinese have a new fighter of similar capabilities. Europe the same. Even Brazil is catching up. Plus we have stand off air to air missiles. Boom. Boom boom.

*How do you know their artillery outranges ours again? Please show me where in the codex or EPIC that Tau have artillery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kallimakus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They have problems against people who use pointed sticks and WWI era tanks. I'm not especially impressed by any of their abiliities except to die.

A Leman Russ might look like a WWI era tank, but it contains most systems we would find in any modern tank, and many that we wouldn't. Its also pretty hard to destroy.
Tau don't 'struggle' against those. They point a railgun at it and watch the explosion. Tau are, in almost any scenario involving the IoM, heavily outnumbered, and have still managed to not lose too hard.
Any flaws in imperial tactics in comparison to ours is likely to be compensated by their far superior tech.

Ask yourself why Imperium uses such 'outdated' pieces of technology as a LRBT.
I think it's because there simply isn't anything that outperforms it in ease of production, durability and firepower.

I'd also like to point out that most poison gases that have been deployed in military context effect chemicals that transmit neurous signals, preventing air from reaching our lungs.
Other gases are corrosive.
Tau wear full body armour, which is likely to be proof against harmful chemicals. Their nervous system probably works on different chemicals so we woldn't have muvh luck there.

The original Forgeworld book had rolled steel equivalent of just a few inches. Unless you've gone back in time to 1850 thats not a serious issue. PLus it has riveted armor.

Mustard gas is not nerve gas.

Frazzled wrote: Mustard gas is not nerve gas.

Indeed. It is an irritating/corrosive gas.
And riveting saves time in construction

Kallimakus wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Mustard gas is not nerve gas.

Indeed. It is an irritating/corrosive gas.
And riveting saves time in construction

Riveting also kills your crew when the hull is hit by a round. It creates the effect of a grenade inside the vehicle, which is why it hasn't been used since WWI.

This is the tau air superiority craft.

This is the tau bomber/drone carrier.

Do they beat earth jets?

'Ok so it's just a gun that you need to deploy before firing. I don't think the tau have any gun like that, but their normal guns probably shoot as fast and have as much stopping power as a normal LMG. A LMG actually sounds like a libility rather then an asset.'

No, you can fire it on the move, it only becomes static if you want it to be. You can also vary the ammo used in some of them, giving them more stopping power. Yes they are more accurate if you deploy them, but you don't have to.

They are tactically a much better weapon than the Carbines that the Tau would employ.

Frazzled wrote:*Both the US and USSR have had interceptors better than that since probably before you were born.

Oh, so the US and USSR have heavily armored (as well armored as a TANK) interceptors with perfectly accurate weapons able to destroy tanks in a single shot, homing missiles which ranges that re measured comparably with ICBMs, while still having a combat speed faster than or equal to most modern fighters' maximum speeds?

Oh wait. I just answered myself...

nomotog wrote:This is the tau air superiority craft.

This is the tau bomber/drone carrier.

Do they beat earth jets?

Its a target. Thats mach 2 at best. No long range interceptor missiles. Snoopy on his doghouse would cream these guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:*Both the US and USSR have had interceptors better than that since probably before you were born.

Oh, so the US and USSR have heavily armored (as well armored as a TANK) interceptors with perfectly accurate weapons able to destroy tanks in a single shot, homing missiles which ranges that re measured comparably with ICBMs, while still having a combat speed faster than or equal to most modern fighters' maximum speeds?

Oh wait. I just answered myself...

Hyperbole much?
* Earth fighters are orders of magnitude faster. Earth fighters have stand off missiles. An old school sparrow has an 80lb explosive charge so er yea now that you mention it.
Tau sighters have guys with weird noses who have dfficulty taking down the finest in early 1960s era fighters (thunderbolts).

So again, Tau have no air cover, or more precisely after the flaming wreckage falls from the sky the Tau have no air cover

'War of the Worlds begs to differ. If its got lungs, it respires. If it respires, that means it must be used to breathing oxygen like humans (or they'll all die of suffocation long before weapons become a factor). If its used to breathing oxygen, poisonous gas lobbed by artillery will have the same effect as it would upon a human'

Just to be picky, the Martians in 'War Of The Worlds' died from the common cold.....but yes, gas would almost certainly affect the Tau, we just don't know how!

To begin with I personally think that earth would win, and that very few people on this thread seem to have read the OP question further than tau vs. earth. I think that a source needs to be defined that everyone can go off of, that would reduce confusion over airspeed, power and what not. Also if we could decide exactly how much air and tank support the earth infantrymen and the fire warriors have, and if we could simplify the equipment load out for each army, possibly give the fire warriors 1 drone per 10 men, pulse rifles, and their grenades, and the earth infantrymen HK416 rifles(The HK416 replaces the M4 carbine’s upper receiver with a short-stroke piston system that soundly beat the standard M4/M16 in May 2007 US Army reliability tests) , grenades, and the 7.62mm M240 LMG.

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:This is the tau air superiority craft.

This is the tau bomber/drone carrier.

Do they beat earth jets?

Its a target. Thats mach 2 at best. No long range interceptor missiles. Snoopy on his doghouse would cream these guys.

What aircraft are you thinking of? I am haveing a hard time finding fighter craft that go faster then mach 2. Granted I am looking on Wikipedia.

KingCracker wrote:Obviously you guys missed/forgot the discussion about how if a chapter of Space Marines assaulted modern day Earth, what would happen. The end result was, people thought they would lose. No, Im not kidding.



Well, Im not saying we would just be laughing stocks here, we would do damage to them and could possibly win some battles. But I think their superior technology would win. Unless Jeff goldbloom showed up with his windows 95 laptop of course.

Also, yea the fire caste is bred for war, but that doesnt mean they are auto winners here. The Japanese in WW2 could be lumped into that same category too. I know Im a bit rusty on my history....but we beat them.

Their armor would be REALLY tough to get through as far as compared to modern flak vests. Im sure they would be far better at stopping our rounds. Id guess our modern stuff would be a 5+ at super best, but most likely a 6 save. But in saying that, their armor isnt super bad ass, we could still blow them up, and if our rounds hit the soft targets, they would die just as easily as we do now adays.


*cant spell*

Until the Screaming Bald Guys' leaders get shot in their helmetless noggins by kids with Daisy airguns. If you're not hitting brain, you just aren't pumping it enough.


21C MBT technology is WAY ahead of that in the 41st millennium. Don't believe me? How fast can a Russ move and still fire its main weapon AT ALL? An Abrams can fire its cannon accurately while moving at top speed. It doesn't need to roll a few D6 just to see if it can see you at night on the first turn of Dawn of War. It sees you from several miles away, at night, through smoke.

Most Western militaries issue night vision at *least* at the squad level. In IDF line units, DMs, fireteam leaders, nearly everybody has night vision, and the IDF is very poorly equipped compared to the US. Roll a few D6 to engage at night? Please...24" range? LOL, we're hitting 10/10 headshots with a 4x ACOG and an M4 at 300m after running 390m and crawling 10m as part of training.


You can't apply things in 40k to the real world. 40k was designed by people who know nothing at all about how modern wars are fought.

I wouldn't put too much faith in poison gas against the tau.

Any poison we can produce would have nothing on the poisons Nurgle is capable of. I'm sure the Tau body armor has respirators and filters.

I also don't think its fair to say that the tau capabilities are limited to the table top. "Oh look! a devil fish can only move 12 inches a turn! Therefore it moves as fast as a moped!" this is just wrong on so many levels.

The table top is a game. It needs to be balanced as a game, and therefore movement speeds and ranges are decreased- so that it can be played on a reasonable sized table.

I'm sure a pulse rifle has longer range and is more accurate then our best sniper rifles-especially with marker light support.

The Tau have developed space ships, and can travel between stars at a reasonable rate (though not as fast as the IoM or Eldar) and they have and maintain an interplanetary empire. Lets not forget that the have FTL capabilities. How long would it take us to reach the next closest star from a space craft... 19,000 years by our current level of tech... thats halfway to when Warhammer starts!

Any army that can create space ships and colonize planets on multiple stars is not going to be wtf pawned by USSR interceptors. Nor are they going to roll over and die because we have long range missiles and artillery- they'll figure out our capacities and devise a method to defeat us. They have the technological advantage- not us.

They could glass us from orbit if they determined that we were too bothersome and there is nothing we could do. But I doubt it would come to that. Any hurdle we throw at the Tau will be analyzed and over come.

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:This is the tau air superiority craft.

This is the tau bomber/drone carrier.

Do they beat earth jets?

Its a target. Thats mach 2 at best. No long range interceptor missiles. Snoopy on his doghouse would cream these guys.

What aircraft are you thinking of? I am haveing a hard time finding fighter craft that go faster then mach 2. Granted I am looking on Wikipedia.

You're right a lot of that is classified. Here's some older ones that are generations old but you get the picture. F-22s and Flankers / F 35s are the big boys right now.
Current stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor


Earlier ones. Note when they came out
The one, the only, the Foxbat OLD school!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxbat

Star Fighter put the lead into lead foot back in 1958
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-104_starfighter.pl
http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/f100.htm

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Obviously you guys missed/forgot the discussion about how if a chapter of Space Marines assaulted modern day Earth, what would happen. The end result was, people thought they would lose. No, Im not kidding.



Well, Im not saying we would just be laughing stocks here, we would do damage to them and could possibly win some battles. But I think their superior technology would win. Unless Jeff goldbloom showed up with his windows 95 laptop of course.

Also, yea the fire caste is bred for war, but that doesnt mean they are auto winners here. The Japanese in WW2 could be lumped into that same category too. I know Im a bit rusty on my history....but we beat them.

Their armor would be REALLY tough to get through as far as compared to modern flak vests. Im sure they would be far better at stopping our rounds. Id guess our modern stuff would be a 5+ at super best, but most likely a 6 save. But in saying that, their armor isnt super bad ass, we could still blow them up, and if our rounds hit the soft targets, they would die just as easily as we do now adays.


*cant spell*

Until the Screaming Bald Guys' leaders get shot in their helmetless noggins by kids with Daisy airguns. If you're not hitting brain, you just aren't pumping it enough.


21C MBT technology is WAY ahead of that in the 41st millennium. Don't believe me? How fast can a Russ move and still fire its main weapon AT ALL? An Abrams can fire its cannon accurately while moving at top speed. It doesn't need to roll a few D6 just to see if it can see you at night on the first turn of Dawn of War. It sees you from several miles away, at night, through smoke.

Most Western militaries issue night vision at *least* at the squad level. In IDF line units, DMs, fireteam leaders, nearly everybody has night vision, and the IDF is very poorly equipped compared to the US. Roll a few D6 to engage at night? Please...24" range? LOL, we're hitting 10/10 headshots with a 4x ACOG and an M4 at 300m after running 390m and crawling 10m as part of training.


You can't apply things in 40k to the real world. 40k was designed by people who know nothing at all about how modern wars are fought.

Why are you part of this discussion? Back under your bridge, Troll! You'll find no sustenance here.

Frazzled wrote:Earth fighters are orders of magnitude faster.

No, they aren't.

Earth fighters have stand off missiles.

So do IoM fighters.

An old school sparrow has an 80lb explosive charge so er yea now that you mention it.

Which is a weak explosive not actually designed to penetrate armor but instead to provide shrapnel that would destroy the fighter's basically nonexistent armor.

I don't know if you've noticed (you have a tendency not to actually read posts you're responding to), but I was only responding to these posts concerning Imperium's aerospace power.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Earth fighters are orders of magnitude faster.

No, they aren't.

I've given real world stats from aircraft made decades ago and compared them against the datacards presented to me from lexicanum. You've refuted with...nothing. You lose.

Earth fighters have stand off missiles.

So do IoM fighters.

An old school sparrow has an 80lb explosive charge so er yea now that you mention it.

Which is a weak explosive not actually designed to penetrate armor but instead to provide shrapnel that would destroy the fighter's basically nonexistent armor.

You brought up comparing them to a tank. Blame yourself.

I don't know if you've noticed (you have a tendency not to actually read posts you're responding to), but I was only responding to these posts concerning Imperium's aerospace power.

Yep I noticed, and I noticed that they are on par with Tau vehicles in combat effectiveness. So I guess you meant to say BOTH get pwoned by puny earthling fighters. Thanks!

Frazzled wrote:You've refuted with...nothing.

Read my posts instead of pulling lies out of wherever you just pulled that one.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You've refuted with...nothing.

Read my posts instead of pulling lies out of wherever you just pulled that one.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say my eyes aren't good, instead of replying to your insult. Now you did say they fight at mach 2. In case you're wondering mach 3 (as with the foxbat) is faster than mach 2. But I'm sure thats not the supposed factoid you're referring to.

Other than insults, what data do you submit that Tau fighters are faster than earth fighters. Lexicanum doesn't do it.

*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

Frazzled wrote:Now you did say they fight at mach 2

No, I said that's their optimal combat speed, they can go faster than that. And they do this WHILE being more heavily armed and armored.

The Lighting isn't the kind of vehicle annular blast fragmentation missiles are going to do much against, and its primary weapon is an autocannon designed specifically for long-ranged anti-air combat, as well as two lascannons and a series of homing missiles which themselves are easily capable of tearing a tank apart, nevermind a lightly armored aircraft.

The Thunderbolt, which would indeed be outperformed in terms of speed, has an even more impressive armament for anti-air purposes, having four of these autocannons as well as two lascannons and its missile complement.

Both of these commonly have well armored cockpits, various kinds of chaff/flare systems, various kinds of targeting systems, etc. Both of those also can take hunter-killer missiles as well, which have practically unlimited range and FAR smarter guidance systems than our own. Even a single one can take down a tank with ease, nevermind a fighter.

And that's only the Imperial Navy's most common fighter types, not getting into Astartes gunships, which have so much firepower and armor that they could take on several wings of modern fighters, destroy them all with ease and come back unscathed-- it'd take far more firepower to take one of these down than our air superiority fighters have on a standard mission.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now you did say they fight at mach 2

No, I said that's their optimal combat speed, they can go faster than that. And they do this WHILE being more heavily armed and armored.

The Lighting isn't the kind of vehicle annular blast fragmentation missiles are going to do much against, and its primary weapon is an autocannon designed specifically for long-ranged anti-air combat, as well as two lascannons and a series of homing missiles which themselves are easily capable of tearing a tank apart, nevermind a lightly armored aircraft.

The Thunderbolt, which would indeed be outperformed in terms of speed, has an even more impressive armament for anti-air purposes, having four of these autocannons as well as two lascannons and its missile complement.

Both of these commonly have well armored cockpits, various kinds of chaff/flare systems, various kinds of targeting systems, etc. Both of those also can take hunter-killer missiles as well, which have practically unlimited range and FAR smarter guidance systems than our own. Even a single one can take down a tank with ease, nevermind a fighter.

And that's only the Imperial Navy's most common fighter types, not getting into Astartes gunships, which have so much firepower and armor that they could take on several wings of modern fighters, destroy them all with ease and come back unscathed-- it'd take far more firepower to take one of these down than our air superiority fighters have on a standard mission.

Please quote your source, else you're just - again-blowing smoke out your ass.

Frazzled wrote:

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

The tau don't have coid shields. Some of their space ships have gravity shields, but that is not the same.

The thing is, the human jets you gave are only a tiny bit faster then tau jets. When you consider that the tau jets are bigger have stronger armor and carry drones. I don't think going a little faster will help.

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

The tau don't have coid shields. Some of their space ships have gravity shields, but that is not the same.

The thing is, the human jets you gave are only a tiny bit faster then tau jets. When you consider that the tau jets are bigger have stronger armor and carry drones. I don't think going a little faster will help.

Fair point, but mind, the ones with actual speeds noted are actual because they are not secrets. We do know that a Foxbat could hit mach 3.2 for short periods of time, and back in the day, the F15 was vaunted at top speed over mach 2. As these things have evolved signfiicantly, I'd proffer the top speeds are substantially higher. If the F-22's cruising speed is nearly mach 2 its combat speeds would be scads higher.

Again, respectfully, how do we know the tau jets have better armor? I'm not worrying about drones becuase they are, like, really slow...

Which is a nice suggestion, but you're the one trying to claim that we should cite sources... yet you are merely speculating yourself.

Frazzled wrote:Please quote your source, else you're just - again-blowing smoke out your ass.

The irony is killing me.

If you want a source, I recommend Aeronautica Imperialis. Imperial Armour has some bits, but Aeronautica Imperialis is SPECIFICALLY about this kind of thing.

Now cite your sources.

Oh wait you don't have any. You're just saying "I don't know what it is but I'm sure it's better".

Melissia wrote:Which is a nice suggestion, but you're the one trying to claim that we should cite sources... yet you are merely speculating yourself.

Frazzled wrote:Please quote your source, else you're just - again-blowing smoke out your ass.

The irony is killing me.

If you want a source, I recommend Aeronautica Imperialis. Imperial Armour has some bits, but Aeronautica Imperialis is SPECIFICALLY about this kind of thing.

So again YOU"VE CITED NOTHING. I'm very impressed.

The Soviet jet noted at the beginning the entire generation is Mach 2+

The old US aircraft had noted speeds nearly comparable to Mach 2. Is it reasonable to assume that they have blown past that 50 years later? To most people yea.
F-15 mach 2.5

http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

The tau don't have coid shields. Some of their space ships have gravity shields, but that is not the same.

The thing is, the human jets you gave are only a tiny bit faster then tau jets. When you consider that the tau jets are bigger have stronger armor and carry drones. I don't think going a little faster will help.

Fair point, but mind, the ones with actual speeds noted are actual because they are not secrets. We do know that a Foxbat could hit mach 3.2 for short periods of time, and back in the day, the F15 was vaunted at top speed over mach 2. As these things have evolved signfiicantly, I'd proffer the top speeds are substantially higher. If the F-22's cruising speed is nearly mach 2 its combat speeds would be scads higher.

Again, respectfully, how do we know the tau jets have better armor? I'm not worrying about drones becuase they are, like, really slow...

I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?

With the exception of the A-10 and similar craft (Which are rare, and the USAAF hates them with a passion and is constantly looking for an excuse to get rid of them for something faster), Earth jets are taken out by what basically amounts to an oversized frag grenade.

I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?
***Now are these drones standard 40K gun drones? If so, then I'd disagree. If they are something else then I'll go with you. Earther jets are not armored outside of certain areas, plus with redundant systems, so they can be considered quite vulnerable.

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?
***Well the images I saw are not particularly aerodynamic but better than the flying bricks that pass for Imperium stuff. Its a good question on the turning as its not tied to speed. We don't know the climb rate without knowledge of the thrust force. they could be better or worse, just not enough info.

I for one welcome our new Tau overlords...

We would lose -badly

Of all of the 40k armies Tau have one of the most sensible styles. They won't needlessly waste their resources like the IoM. In a 100 v 100 fight they would be one of the best forces.

Their weapons are better than ours in every respect. Bolters fire small rockets that explode inside you and they are beaten by pulse weapons. The Tau do have rapid firing weapons. While the rules don't show it well pulse rifles and lasguns are both capable of automatic fire.

Their armour is much better- they have force fields

In a BL book a human fires a pulse rifle into a forest and it just blows through the trees leaving a large hole behind it. Any cover we get behind will be very quickly destroyed by tau weapons.

LMBT have better armour than anything we have, the materials are far superior, and railguns go through them easily.

Our aircraft are usually a strength when it comes to us vs 40k but the tau have some of the best aircraft and far better pilots. We would struggle to even penetrate their armour.

We do have nukes but the Tau could destroy our planet if they fired some of their most powerful weapons at it.

4M2A wrote:They won't needlessly waste their resources like the IoM.

The IoM suffers from a lot of what is termed flanderization. They don't waste resources anywhere NEAR as much as the internet makes them out to do.

TL: DR at the bottom, but I highly suggest reading this, as you won't get the nuances of the argument.


Looking over this thread, I just wanted to throw my two cents in:

1. Missiles as Artillery

There was a "missiles aren't considered artillery" argument perhaps a page back. I noticed everyone was getting really touchy over the definition of artillery and how missiles aren't artillery? I do know of one instance where they were certainly considered artillery. I believe the unit was called Stalin's organ. A truck mounted with a battery of tube launchers that fired what could be equated to missiles from great distances, and in a way that artillery fired normal, explosive shells. So it is quite possible that a missile could be considered artillery, it's just how one fields that missile.

2. Infantry

If this were just an infantry battle, meaning men versus weird fish things, I don't think there is any doubt that the Tau would clean house. Simply because on that individual level, their armor and weapons outclass ours by several leagues. The basic tau rifle, a plasma weapon, could actually destroy some of our heaviest armor given its nature, not being an impact weapon but one where heat is the main ingredient. The Abrams has a very neat system of ceramite armor that has been designed to stop rockets by causing them to blow up prematurely, before the sensitive underbelly is reached. This wouldn't effect plasma. It would also neutralize our heaviest personal armor. The highest form of personal defense I can think of that we deploy to our men is a system of interlocking ceramic plates (once again, sensing a trend) and due to the nature of tau rifles not being impact weapons but energy, would render them fairly useless.

So in a purely infantry battle the Tau would win. This, of course, is disregarding the training of one army versus the other. However, I feel that the training we receive as soldiers and the breeding that creates the Tau firewarrior caste roughly equal each other. Or, looking at it another way, the superiority of the infantry weaponry is so strikingly obvious, that all the tactics in the world wouldn't be able to effect the overall outcome.

3. Armored Support and the conversations related to them

Now if we start adding armor things get a bit more complex. If we're saying tanks and APC like units are the only things allowed, we're actually giving ourselves a bit of an advantage. Now, if we had said a generic term along the lines of "Heavy Support" then perhaps it would be a bit more equal. But none the less, let us talk about the Tau Hammerhead tank and the Abrams tank that people seem to like so much around here.

In terms of speed, I would say that the Hammerhead and Abrams would be about equal. The Hammerhead is a skimmer, and so terrain would have little effect on it. The Abrams is simply a monster, that uses the raw power of its engine to reach up to seventy miles an hour off road. I pulled that number from the ether, somebody check me on that. So it's difficult to say who would outrun who.

Defensive capabilities. The Abrams, we have discussed. It uses a defensive system that focuses on foiling impacts and explosions caused by those impacts. The Hammerhead obviously has a hardened outer armor, which in my opinion, would function much like our own Abrams defensive system. I infer this, as Melta weapons (meaning ones that use heat and energy), still have an increased effect on it. The only difference, and what I would consider an advantage, that the Hammerhead has is the disruption field. In this circumstance, it would essentially disable the Abrams targeting system or cause static...or some other effect to the same end, making it significantly harder to target and hit. This gives Tau the edge in defensive capabilities, in one man's personal opinion.

Offensive capabilities. The Abrams, as far as my small knowledge of it goes, has between a 105 and 120mm cannon. It can fire solid shot, explosive, incendiary, and even fragmentation rounds. It can also take fitted sabot rounds that have an increased armor piercing capability. It also have various mounted weapons such as a .50 caliber machine gun. Very impressive to say the least. The Hammerhead, and forgive me I am a bit fuzzy on this, has two choices. A burst shot, similar to a frag round, and a solid shot railgun-esque round as well as a burst cannon. In this circumstance, I would rate them about equally in terms of tank killing and anti infantry capabilities.

So using these three criteria, and I know I am oversimplifying, forgive me, the Hammerhead edges out the Abrams slightly by having the ability to reduce our tank's effectiveness in combat with its defensive abilities, in terms of armor versus armor. Now, I use this as an example because we could reasonably expect the back up of one tank for a group of about 100 infantry, perhaps more. But I certainly think the tau would bring roughly the same number.

I could go into the Bradley APC versus the Devilfish but I feel that would be superfluous. If someone would like to have that conversation, and hear my opinions on it, then quote this part of the argument and include your desires in the following post.

4. Aircraft

I know significantly less about our aircraft capabilities than our infantry and armor. So I would like you to take everything I say here with a grain of salt. I am of the opinion, that in this situation, most air support would be close air support. Meaning top speeds and dogfighting statistics would be...not irrelevant, but perhaps less important. I think that the A10 Warthog would be a suitable piece of equipment that you could expect for this kind of support in a small infantry skirmish (small, meant relatively). With a heavy Gatling gun mounted in the noise, it would be a serious danger to both infantry and vehicles, as far as explosive ordinance...I am drawing a blank, and will leave that to those more versed in this. But none the less, the aircraft is more heavily armored than normal aircraft to suit its particular role, which I believe is tank killing. Now if someone from the Tau side would like to show me an aircraft to match the stats of the A10, I'd be more than happy to talk on that subject more.

Suffice it to say, at this point, our close air support would provide some help, but depending on the terrain and scenario could easily be more or less helpful in the long run. I do believe that it would be a small contribution if any as I see this fight being short and brutal. The air support would have one run or so, and then would return to refit or refuel.

5. The exclusion of the Battle Suit

This I believe to be the one reason that the argument here has any sporting chance to it. The Tau are unable to access their battle suits, XV8 and Stealth specifically. Lets talk first about the stealth suit. Given its name, it has a stealth system, whether this is a sort of "Halo Elite Active Camo" or perhaps something that makes them invisible to heat these are the ones that would be the outriders of a small Tau force. The scouts, looking ahead without being looked at themselves. This would give the Tau some warning about our own combat efficiency, allowing them at least a heads up of what we have in store for them. Second, their offensive stats. They have a burst cannon, which as far as I know, is meant to shred infantry. It could be equated to a chain gun, but man portable and with perhaps a smaller calibre, but this is a bit of conjecture on my part. Either way, this could do some serious damage to the infantry elements of our forces. Add in the fact that they are capable of rapid movement, and you have a unit that could really cause serious damage for little in reciprocation (Jump, shoot, jump back into cover).

The XV8 suit is also something who's exclusion allows this match to be sporting. I would consider that the Tau would take a team of Crisis suits before they would take a hammerhead. You combine the incredibly fast movement of the Stealth Suit, with devastatingly heavier weapons, and you truly have a force to be reckoned with. I doubt an Abrams or its crew would have the speed and familiarity with the Tau to accurately take out a team of these suits.

I know this was outside the original parameters, but I believe it had to be said. As I haven't seen a Tau army list yet that doesn't include a crisis suit. Except for those 500 points armies, which are only about 12-40 infantry models, depending.

If anyone would like to speak on any one of these points, please quote them, and I would be happy to start a dialogue!

TL: DR: Please reconsidered reading the whole argument. It will help weed out those who are actually interested in this topic, and those that are simply trolls.

Interesting points gpfunk

*Please add artillery to your discussion point.

*Also if infantry on infantry only, what about earther heavy weapons being added to the mix.

We win..we win..A Modern Earth Army will always win over any 40k army.

Ok that was just for the fan boys because I know how it hurts there feelings to think there fav. 40k army could lose.

But the Tau are as close to one of our earth armys as you get in 40k, or so it seems to me.
In fact I kind of think if we could somehow get/make a ship that could get us to other worlds we would end up alot like the Tau.

Only we would do it better. But thats a story for another thread.

100vs100
The Tau unlike the IG do have better guns/armor then we do, and they do have good night fighting skills/equipment.<--That's Huge.
Tau Tanks do not have as much armor as a Russ, im thinking tank/vs tank= a wash for the most part.

Tau fires big uber space gun at Modern tank... modern tank gos boom.
Modern tank fires at Tau... Tau Tank may go boom, and it may not.
But...most armys today can bring a huge amount of anti armor to the field if need be in sort order.
So perhaps we have to fire more shots at a Tau tank but....well have more shots to fire.

The Tau Fire Warriors do not seem to put any type of heavy guns/support in there units, or even light MGs and I think its a huge weakness for them when fighting any army of our time line, and I think it kills them in game as well.
A grenade launcher gos along way, in and of its self. And they need some type of light MG support.

We all know Tau guns are better,and they will blow big wholes in our guys. STR-5 = dead trooper.
We have STR-3 Stub guns and the like, and those would do the trick good enough vs Tau.
But again the Tau have the range on us.
But there greater range will almost be for nothing as most fire fights even in the war take place are very close range.
I don't think the Tau can aim a gun any better then we can, so it would just come down to who saw the other guys first.

And armor.
The Tau have us hands down on armor. I think it would be a huge thing in there favor.
We might be able to to make up for it with our light/heavy support. But maybe not.

All in all id say in a 100vs100 match with all things being = they win. But id say we would put up a real good fight.

Melissia-It is over exagerated but it still happens. They will still risk their soldiers when it may be more effective in the long term to keep them alive- just because they are used to having enough men that it isn't a problem to loose a few hundred.

There are a lot of comments saying how much artillery / tanks we can put down but this is mean to be in an even fight. For every tank we put down they get one too. 1v1 a hammerhead will blow apart any of our vehicles.

Frazzled wrote:I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?
***Now are these drones standard 40K gun drones? If so, then I'd disagree. If they are something else then I'll go with you. Earther jets are not armored outside of certain areas, plus with redundant systems, so they can be considered quite vulnerable.

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?
***Well the images I saw are not particularly aerodynamic but better than the flying bricks that pass for Imperium stuff. Its a good question on the turning as its not tied to speed. We don't know the climb rate without knowledge of the thrust force. they could be better or worse, just not enough info.

They carry bust cannons so they are not normal drones. I kind of guess that they are meant to be detached and act as wing men, but they might be as slow as normal drones. and just having the ability to be swapped out mid flight by slowing down.

Tau jets are armored with something called "Nano-Crystalline alloy" sounds like good armor .

The lexicon says that the the Barracuda has more maneuverability then Thunderbolts. We can do something with that.

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?
***Now are these drones standard 40K gun drones? If so, then I'd disagree. If they are something else then I'll go with you. Earther jets are not armored outside of certain areas, plus with redundant systems, so they can be considered quite vulnerable.

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?
***Well the images I saw are not particularly aerodynamic but better than the flying bricks that pass for Imperium stuff. Its a good question on the turning as its not tied to speed. We don't know the climb rate without knowledge of the thrust force. they could be better or worse, just not enough info.

They carry bust cannons so they are not normal drones. I kind of guess that they are meant to be detached and act as wing men, but they might be as slow as normal drones. and just having the ability to be swapped out mid flight by slowing down.

Tau jets are armored with something called "Nano-Crystalline alloy" sounds like good armor .

The lexicon says that the the Barracuda has more maneuverability then Thunderbolts. We can do something with that.

***drones being mini fighters: ok.
***I saw that. Now they are not particularly armored in EPIC (the fighters) but lets go with a minimum of some armor is better than no armor. I'm thinking that and potential more maneuverability means Tau have the edge in a furball or more survivability against AA /SAM missiles (depending on the size of the SAM).

Having said that, I am just not seeing how these guys take on earther fighters that can stand off and hit with missiles at range.

I would say that the tau have better close air support then we do. They have the abilty to call down missle strikes just like us, but they can also call down drones that can then call down Missie strikes.

Let me first say that, the last time I played table-top 40K, the Tau did not exist. At all. So I am, outside of general terms and descriptions, unfamiliar with the vehicles in their army. I am, though, familiar with enough of Tau technology (and tech in the 40K universe in general), to draw some conclusions.

I would assume every space-faring vessel has some kind of void shield. Even if it is not a class of shield that can at all stand up to the firepower of a combat vessel, it would need some sort of shield (or extremely thick armor) to pass through the various debris fields found out in space.

Our own, real-life, near-orbit is getting absolutely *clogged* with space-junk from the thousands of satellites, orbital vehicles, rockets, private experimental space vehicles and other things we keep throwing into orbit. This is why the space shuttle and such generally only have 10, 15 minute "launch windows"... that's when the overhead sky is clear of trash and satellites enough to not risk the thing flying into something and exploding.

The Tau, being a space-faring race, and masters of an empire spanning hundreds of worlds, would require some form of energy shield, or extremely thick armor, in order to travel at even sub-light speeds through the void of space, without having a tiny space-pebble tear right through the hull and vent them all into space. They're not going to use a warp-jump, for example, to travel from one of their worlds to its closest moon, they're going to fly it in real-space, with all of its attendant risks.

Thus, the Tau ship is going to need one or the other (or both). It is extremely unlikely that we have anything that can penetrate the hull of a vessel capable of sustaining an asteroid collision (even a small one). Thick armor, however, is more a hallmark of the Imperium than it is the tech-advanced Tau, who would almost certainly make use of energy shields, or perhaps even a highly-advanced "defense net" of plasma weapons to deflect/destroy inbound projectiles/objects. This would work against missiles and rockets as easily as it would asteroids and space-junk.

This, of course, is only regarding its space-capable craft. Even ones that are orbital (rather than inter-planetary) would require some sort of defense against space-junk. Air-superiority fighters of the Tau would probably lack a specific defense net, though they may have what we would call an ABM system (anti-ballistic missile), or a defense similar to the Phalanx anti-missile system, to defend it from incoming fire. It may do this through ECM/ECCM, jammers, drone-swarms, or any of a number of ways that aren't necessarily covered in the rulebooks, specifically, but may be assumed to be covered in the all-encompassing "armor save".

nomotog wrote:I would say that the tau have better close air support then we do. They have the abilty to call down missle strikes just like us, but they can also call down drones that can then call down Missie strikes.

I forgot about that in EPIC. I yield if other non nuclear assets are involved.

Now if we're talking company vs. company with no support, how do the heavy wepaons match as a mitigant to superior Tau handweapons?

Frazzled wrote:Interesting points gpfunk
*Please add artillery to your discussion point.

What more would you like me to add? That wasn't necessarily connected to the actually fight discussion. I could certainly add in more about different ways in which missiles have been considered artillery. Or perhaps I could add in some US artillery versus I don't know what the Tau equivalent would be. Probably the hammerhead again, given its 72" scale range.

Frazzled wrote:
*Also if infantry on infantry only, what about earther heavy weapons being added to the mix.

So, heavy weapons. We talking man portable? Or are we talking about two to three man jobs? I'll try to cover a little bit of both. In terms of man portable options, the most common ones, at least in terms of US troops are the M249 SAW and the M60 Squad Machine Gun. Then we can move on to launchers and the like.

Lets talk about the SAW first. I personally think that this weapon would be less than useful versus the Tau. The M249 has a high rate of fire, very good accuracy, lower recoil than guns in its class, but this is all coupled with the fact that it is firing smaller projectiles with less armor penetrating ability. The bullets would either bounce off most Tau armor or cause non-fatal wounds due to the diffusion of the force of the bullet.

Now, the M60 on the other hand I feel would be a threat to be reckoned with. This is a heavy, generally belt fed, high recoil, low ROF, high calibre machine gun. The increased caliber would lend to an easier negation of the Tau armor. This would be a palpable threat, if this weapon is able to be used at its full potential. Due to the high recoil, it is most effective if set up in a static position, either behind cover, or prone with the bipod up. If the M60 were allowed to fire indiscriminately with no fear of reprisal, then it would cause some damage. But given the effectiveness of the plasma as penetrating cover, I would say the gunner would be hard pressed to find a spot where it could safely fire.

I do not think that the heavy machine guns would tip the scale either way.

Now I don't know much about Tau heavy weapons but I know one is a rail rifle. I will assume for the sake of the argument, that it is a suped up plasma gun with higher penetration and greater chance of fatality. More on this thing later.

US "heavy" weapons. I would classify any sort of explosive launcher here. Meaning M203 underslung grenade launchers, LAW Anti Aircraft/Personnel Launchers, and Wire Guided of Heat seeking shoulder fired missiles. This could potentially change the outcome of the battle. Once again, my knowledge here is limited, so check my information and take it with your salt.

M203 Grenade launchers, I would consider them to be no different than the grenades in the 40k universe. Low strength, small blast, man portable. I believe this weapon would be less than effective in penetrating the armor of the tau, barring a square, dead center hit. The fragmentation from these rounds would, in all probability, be negated by the advanced armor the Tau possess. I won't say it is useless, but it won't be a game changer in terms of a power v power argument.

LAW Launchers and the like. These are point and shoot ordinance that allows a high degree of accuracy without sacrificing power or portability. These would certainly penetrate Tau armor, and would certainly cause them to duck their heads for a few moments, allowing time for you to maneuver or reload. These would be extremely effective, but vulnerable in that same breath. Any smart soldier will see and take these out. Though I do think they would be very effective.


I have to go for now, but will continue this later. Edited.

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:I would say that the tau have better close air support then we do. They have the abilty to call down missle strikes just like us, but they can also call down drones that can then call down Missie strikes.

I forgot about that in EPIC. I yield if other non nuclear assets are involved.

Now if we're talking company vs. company with no support, how do the heavy wepaons match as a mitigant to superior Tau handweapons?

It's still a hard battle. The tau lack a actual explosive grenade, but at the same time they can still use drones and their weapons are a lot better.That only matters so much though I mean kill someone and then vaporize someone there is not a whole lot of difference. I say humans might have the edge if they guerrilla warfare inside of a jungle.

Ok, two points.

Firstly, what happens in a game does not equal how the 40K universe pans out in the stories and literature. It's a very basic representational framework. Saying things like 'their tanks can only shoot all the guns if they stay still, ours can move and fire now!' is complete nonsense.

Secondly, when we have plasma weapons, grav tanks with railguns, smart drone technology and... oh, what's the use?

That will come down to a matter of defenses. If the Tau infantry body-armor presents a viable defense against Imperial bolt-guns, then our modern heavy weapons (including only the man-portable ones, like the .50-cal M2 and similar) are really not much of a threat.

gpfunk wrote:
Lets talk about the SAW first. I personally think that this weapon would be less than useful versus the Tau. The M249 has a high rate of fire, very good accuracy, lower recoil than guns in its class, but this is all coupled with the fact that it is firing smaller projectiles with less armor penetrating ability. The bullets would either bounce off most Tau armor or cause non-fatal wounds due to the diffusion of the force of the bullet.

Now, the M60 on the other hand I feel would be a threat to be reckoned with. This is a heavy, generally belt fed, high recoil, low ROF, high calibre machine gun. The increased caliber would lend to an easier negation of the Tau armor. This would be a palpable threat, if this weapon is able to be used at its full potential. Due to the high recoil, it is most effective if set up in a static position, either behind cover, or prone with the bipod up. If the M60 were allowed to fire indiscriminately with no fear of reprisal, then it would cause some damage. But given the effectiveness of the plasma as penetrating cover, I would say the gunner would be hard pressed to find a spot where it could safely fire.

Eh... the M249 fires a 5.56mm round, the M60 a 7.62mm round... neither of which is all that in the realm of 40k weapons. Again, unless the Tau are instantly killed by a boltgun with no hope of an armor save, then our main LMGs and GPMGs are not going to bring anything new to the field the Tau haven't faced before. Sure, a round might go through an eye-lens or other weak point of the armor, but in reality, these will be "lucky shots" rather than an expression of the weapon's power.

@gpfunk. The Abrams has a speed of 33 mph off road. A hammerhead is not effected by surface friction so will be A LOT faster. An Abrams direct hit would likely penetrate and destroy Tau armour, but a Hammerhead is better in every way.

@ Snogs. The IG do have better guns and armour than us.

In terms of aiming ability, a Fire Warrior would be no better than your average modern day soldier. The Pulse Rifle however is a plasma weapon so is largely unaffected by wind speed or any other factor that effects kinetic rounds (except Gravity)

The Tau are generally not lacking in heavy support weaponry. It's provided by Crisis Suits. In this particular engagement they are not allowed, hence Tau are lacking in support that modern day infantry carry normally.

If I was commanding 100 human troops and trying to defeat 100 fire warriors, here is how I would do it. First thing I would do is have it take place in a jungle or other place with a lot of cover and concealment.

My troops would work light and avoid getting into shooting matches with tau squads. Rather I would have them laying laying foot traps (Tau don't wear shoes ) and claymores. Hopefully they take out some squads and steal their weapons before the tau get wise to the traps.

Melee would be a good plan. The tau are actually bigger then humans, but they lack training and that is more important.

Treat everything like a trap. It's one of the tau's core tactics to lure people into a trap. That lone tau unit is not an opportunity, it's bate.

Psienesis wrote:

Eh... the M249 fires a 5.56mm round, the M60 a 7.62mm round... neither of which is all that in the realm of 40k weapons. Again, unless the Tau are instantly killed by a boltgun with no hope of an armor save, then our main LMGs and GPMGs are not going to bring anything new to the field the Tau haven't faced before. Sure, a round might go through an eye-lens or other weak point of the armor, but in reality, these will be "lucky shots" rather than an expression of the weapon's power.

I'm simply trying to bring the 40k universe and ours into a realm where they can actually exist together for a fair comparison. An M60, at least in my view, has the profile of a heavy bolter, maybe slightly less. In all likelyhood the .50 represents a heavy bolter. This is all for the sake of comparison of course. In either case, the larger point I was trying to make is that the man portable machine guns from the US would not effect the outcome of the battle.

@Iproxtaco:

Thank you for the fact check. All I could recall about the off roading ability of the Abrams is that it was extremely fast for what it was. That being said, the Tau hammerhead would have an even greater advantage over the Abrams.

Any race that is capable of FTL travel and has colonized entire planets and visited other stars is not going to "ooo and ahhh" about ANYTHING our armed forces have to offer.
Sure the Tau are a bunch of nobodies compared to the Eldar, Orks, Nids, Necrons, Dark Eldar, IoM, but compared to us...

Tau have weapons of mass destruction. All the major races do. They just don't USE them because it destroys the planet- and generally they want the planet. Fat lot of good a smoldering rock is for expanding the 'ol empire.

Its all speculation though, as the Tau wouldn't actually engage us in armed conflict. They'd approach peacefully, demonstrate their amazing technology, open trade lines, gather supporters in our world governments... and BAM for the greater good.

akaean wrote:
Its all speculation though, as the Tau wouldn't actually engage us in armed conflict. They'd approach peacefully, demonstrate their amazing technology, open trade lines, gather supporters in our world governments... and BAM for the greater good.

That is a hilariously good point, that I do not think should be ignored. Pretty much circumvents all the small detail quibs in this thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:If I was commanding 100 human troops and trying to defeat 100 fire warriors, here is how I would do it. First thing I would do is have it take place in a jungle or other place with a lot of cover and concealment.

My troops would work light and avoid getting into shooting matches with tau squads. Rather I would have them laying laying foot traps (Tau don't wear shoes ) and claymores. Hopefully they take out some squads and steal their weapons before the tau get wise to the traps.

Melee would be a good plan. The tau are actually bigger then humans, but they lack training and that is more important.

Treat everything like a trap. It's one of the tau's core tactics to lure people into a trap. That lone tau unit is not an opportunity, it's bate.

Melee would be the only place in which a human could defeat a Tau as humans are BIGGER and STRONGER than every Caste, even the Fire Caste who are the biggest and strongest of them all.

gpfunk wrote:I'm simply trying to bring the 40k universe and ours into a realm where they can actually exist together for a fair comparison. An M60, at least in my view, has the profile of a heavy bolter, maybe slightly less. In all likelyhood the .50 represents a heavy bolter. This is all for the sake of comparison of course. In either case, the larger point I was trying to make is that the man portable machine guns from the US would not effect the outcome of the battle.

Wow, you think an M60 has the same power as a heavy bolter?

You would be best off just leaving this discussion at this point. The idea that an M60=heavy bolter is so horribly off base that I can't imagine any of your other reality vs 40k comparisons having any merit.

Unless you mean to say that a HB is to a bolter as an M60 is to an m16? That would be much more within the realm of sanity.

Frazzled wrote:
Except for speed and ability to shoot at distance you are 100% correct. I'll give on G forces as we have no data on imperial craft and whether they have that incredibly high tech thing called a G suit.

Take Lightning for example - it shots LASERS at other aircraft, we shot bullets....
And Lightning can be drooped from orbit, it is after all Imperial Navy dog-fighter. None of our aircraft can go into space ( actual space ) and then re-enter Earth with that kind of speed.
And Lightning can go into space without a problem, so they are faster than any our aircraft. I think that only Aurora can match it's speed, but I never heard about one going into space.

4M2A wrote:Melissia-It is over exagerated but it still happens.

It happens to the Tau too, or it will eventually once they become big enough.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Earth fighters are orders of magnitude faster.

No, they aren't.

I've given real world stats from aircraft made decades ago and compared them against the datacards presented to me from lexicanum. You've refuted with...nothing. You lose.

Except that aircraft cannot operate on 8000km witch is the operating range of Lightning ( Su-35 max is 3500km, F-22 Raptor is much less 2,960km ).
And max speed for both of them is 2.24 Machs - Lightning speed is 2.40 Mach.
Both planes have max of 6 air to air rockets, Lightning have LASSCANNONS for dogfight and autocannon for ground attack ( like Specter Gunship ).
Operational Ceiling of Lightning is 36.000m ( so Lightning can go into space and refuel ), while our aircraft is not that advance enough.
The only advantage we have over it is electronics, but overall Lightning have a great performance and it can beat every aircraft we throw today at it.
Plus, to build one Raptor it takes how much? 150 million dollars? IoM build Lightning like we build light-balls...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
The Thunderbolt, which would indeed be outperformed in terms of speed, has an even more impressive armament for anti-air purposes, having four of these autocannons as well as two lascannons and its missile complement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Please quote your source, else you're just - again-blowing smoke out your ass.

She is right. Thunderbolt has 39,000m Operational Ceiling, Range of 12,000km in atmosphere ( Lightning had only 8,000 ). AS for armament it has 4x Autocanons and 2x Lascannons.
Still better than any our planes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
What Tau vehicles have void shields?

Imperium of Man has Void Shield. Tau has primitive shielding equipment, and only troops and ships have them ( shiled drone ). Tau vehicles don't have shields.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
The Soviet jet noted at the beginning the entire generation is Mach 2+

The old US aircraft had noted speeds nearly comparable to Mach 2. Is it reasonable to assume that they have blown past that 50 years later? To most people yea.
F-15 mach 2.5

There are some faster plains, but only in High altitude. And that speed has it's downfall - operational range is soften a lot ( In comparison to F-22, Mig-25 has grater speed but much lower operational range ). And it's a bad choice to quote Soviet and Russian aircraft, because Russians have always going to speed instead of operational range ( just see Mig-21, it's an engine with build up cabin ). Imperial fighters don't go for speed as they would refuel like wild ( every 10-20 minutes ), they go to operational range ( our aircraft are design for countries, Imperial for whole planet ) and power ( Lascannons still beat bullets and rockets ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

4M2A wrote: They won't needlessly waste their resources like the IoM.

The difference is that IoM have a s*** ton of recourses ( just see 13'th Black Crusade - how many Guard Regiments where on Cadia? ). And Imperium is not using 10% of it's war recourse. And what recourses do the Orks or Tyranids have to waste?

Let's all go back to OP shall we....( after all, there is no IoM here for a change )....

NuggzTheNinja wrote:21C MBT technology is WAY ahead of that in the 41st millennium. Don't believe me? How fast can a Russ move and still fire its main weapon AT ALL? An Abrams can fire its cannon accurately while moving at top speed. It doesn't need to roll a few D6 just to see if it can see you at night on the first turn of Dawn of War. It sees you from several miles away, at night, through smoke.

Most Western militaries issue night vision at *least* at the squad level. In IDF line units, DMs, fireteam leaders, nearly everybody has night vision, and the IDF is very poorly equipped compared to the US. Roll a few D6 to engage at night? Please...24" range? LOL, we're hitting 10/10 headshots with a 4x ACOG and an M4 at 300m after running 390m and crawling 10m as part of training.

You can't apply things in 40k to the real world. 40k was designed by people who know nothing at all about how modern wars are fought.

Just a sec there, friend. Back in 2ed, things pretty much worked as you described; most everybody had access to sensors etc that cut clear through smoke, with only sci-fi Blind Grenades offering any way to disrupt sight lines. Vehicles could open up with every weapon whilst moving at breakneck speed (except Demolishers). Missile launchers could fire pretty much the length of the table. Any unit leader could carry a scanner many orders of magnitude above the things seen in Aliens.

Thing is, this didn't make for a particularly good wargame. Especially not at the skirmish-battalion level of game that was largely the norm. The 40k designers from 3ed onwards aren't ignorant of modern technology, rather they put exaggerated archetypes above realism to create an entertaining dicefest of chainsaw-wielding nutcases running at gunlines of fanatics who shoot anybody who develops any new technology, and space elves with ultratech against which absolutely no armour composite is proof trying to shoot up creatures made of actual magic.

Right. Machinse like the Auspex are pretty common-- some guard regiments have them at the squad level, and certainly almost all military-grade vehicles have them. Auspices scan for energy emissions, motion, and biological life signs, and is able to detect a damned lot of things not detectable by the human eye (for example, radiation, invisible gases, etc). These things are more complex than what is in an Astartes' helmet, but they're pretty common in the Imperium-- about as common as a demolition charge or voxcaster.

100 on 100, it depends on the soldiers in question. Firewarriors are inferior to Guardsmen man for man, and Guardsmen are roughly equivalent to modern Spec Ops in training. Throw snipers into the mix, and the Tau are easily overmatched.

Bump it up to a full scale conflict, on the level that Tau would (at least initially) actually commit to taking a world, and my money's still on modern forces. Battlesuits wouldn't stand up to anti-material rifles, firewarriors wouldn't stand up to more conventional rifles and infantry portable explosives, and hammerheads would come out barely better armored than an Abrams and grossly outnumbered by things capable of shooting one down.

A Space Marine chapter would fail for the same reason battlesuits would: an anti-material rifle would turn the Marine inside into a messy pulp, and I'd hazard a guess there are more anti-material rifles in service throughout the world than there would Marines in a chapter, to ignore that a single one could bring down several Marines in short order...

Your love for antimateriel rifles is obvious, but it takes something along the lines of an ATGM to completely cut through power armor reliably. Basically a hellfire or equivalent.

A 100 Soldiers trained to invade planets who have experienced war in the 41st are going to wipe the floor with 100 of anything we have.

For all we know the worst world war we have ever experienced doesn't rank as a planetary squabble by their standards.

If 100 of any troops from 40K dropped on in I'd imagine we would shatner ourselves.

Oh no, 100 troops from ANY group isn't gonna do a good job actually conquering our planet. Just too few bodies, too much terrain to cover.

BeefCakeSoup wrote:A 100 Soldiers trained to invade planets who have experienced war in the 41st are going to wipe the floor with 100 of anything we have.

For all we know the worst world war we have ever experienced doesn't rank as a planetary squabble by their standards.

If 100 of any troops from 40K dropped on in I'd imagine we would shatner ourselves.

I think you underestimate the power of ICBMs my friend. We're not nearly as much of pushovers as you think.

Melissia wrote:Oh no, 100 troops from ANY group isn't gonna do a good job actually conquering our planet. Just too few bodies, too much terrain to cover.

Exactly my point, even 100 Space Marines (though could probably conquer a significant area) couldn't face millions of soldiers alone and survive. Granted, the world would have to work together on that one. Good luck with that.

tau kill them all

Melissia wrote:Your love for antimateriel rifles is obvious, but it takes something along the lines of an ATGM to completely cut through power armor reliably. Basically a hellfire or equivalent.

A man-portable rifle that can take out an APC at over a mile. Power armor wouldn't stand up to something that can take out an armored vehicle, and Space Marines wouldn't have any recourse against someone shooting at them from over a mile away, nor are they particularly small targets, nor do they have any conception of cover (presumably a large portion of their brains are replaced with the glands that produce the all-important acid drool, it would certainly explain a lot).

gpfunk wrote:Offensive capabilities. The Abrams, as far as my small knowledge of it goes, has between a 105 and 120mm cannon. It can fire solid shot, explosive, incendiary, and even fragmentation rounds. It can also take fitted sabot rounds that have an increased armor piercing capability. It also have various mounted weapons such as a .50 caliber machine gun. Very impressive to say the least. The Hammerhead, and forgive me I am a bit fuzzy on this, has two choices. A burst shot, similar to a frag round, and a solid shot railgun-esque round as well as a burst cannon. In this circumstance, I would rate them about equally in terms of tank killing and anti infantry capabilities.

So you're ranking a 120mm cannon as equal to a railgun in destructive potential? I'd love to know where the US Army got the Unobtainium for their new super-rounds in that case.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Melissia wrote:Your love for antimateriel rifles is obvious, but it takes something along the lines of an ATGM to completely cut through power armor reliably. Basically a hellfire or equivalent.

A man-portable rifle that can take out an APC at over a mile. Power armor wouldn't stand up to something that can take out an armored vehicle, and Space Marines wouldn't have any recourse against someone shooting at them from over a mile away, nor are they particularly small targets, nor do they have any conception of cover (presumably a large portion of their brains are replaced with the glands that produce the all-important acid drool, it would certainly explain a lot).

Would those be the .50 cal rifles that are inferior to the 1.0 cal missile cannons known as heavy bolters, which in turn don't reliably penetrate power armour?

100 Space Marines could utterly cripple our planet.

Send in a drop pod to wipe out the military command centre of each major superpower - we have nothing that could spot or stop a supersonic drop pod coming in from orbit.

And I don't care how good we think our special forces are and how good our contingency plans and bunkers are: Astartes are giant, post-human monsters who don't need doors, they can walk through walls.

The specialise in shock and awe tactics. We'd be a reeling mess before we knew we were under attack, by which time they'd be moving on towards their next targets.

And as for Tau, anyone saying that 3rd millennium solid slug shells and kevlar armour could stand up to plasma pulse weapons and super-dense nano-crystalline armour needs to have a little more imagination and do a little less flag waving and anthem humming...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Melissia wrote:Your love for antimateriel rifles is obvious, but it takes something along the lines of an ATGM to completely cut through power armor reliably. Basically a hellfire or equivalent.

A man-portable rifle that can take out an APC at over a mile. Power armor wouldn't stand up to something that can take out an armored vehicle, and Space Marines wouldn't have any recourse against someone shooting at them from over a mile away, nor are they particularly small targets, nor do they have any conception of cover (presumably a large portion of their brains are replaced with the glands that produce the all-important acid drool, it would certainly explain a lot).

Would those be the .50 cal rifles that are inferior to the 1.0 cal missile cannons known as heavy bolters, which in turn don't reliably penetrate power armour?

A bolter isn't designed to penetrate anything. It's like a firecracker on a model rocket engine. It wouldn't be able to punch through the armor plating on a vehicle to destroy the engine or kill the crew inside (or, say, punch through a concrete wall at a mile to kill the three soldiers trying to set up a heavy machine gun nest behind it). A bolt pistol is, however, enough to blow a Space Marine's head off, as happened in Eisenhorn when an escaped psyker took control of Eisenhorn and had him shoot a nearby Marine.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Melissia wrote:Your love for antimateriel rifles is obvious, but it takes something along the lines of an ATGM to completely cut through power armor reliably. Basically a hellfire or equivalent.

A man-portable rifle that can take out an APC at over a mile. Power armor wouldn't stand up to something that can take out an armored vehicle, and Space Marines wouldn't have any recourse against someone shooting at them from over a mile away, nor are they particularly small targets, nor do they have any conception of cover (presumably a large portion of their brains are replaced with the glands that produce the all-important acid drool, it would certainly explain a lot).

Would those be the .50 cal rifles that are inferior to the 1.0 cal missile cannons known as heavy bolters, which in turn don't reliably penetrate power armour?

A bolter isn't designed to penetrate anything. It's like a firecracker on a model rocket engine. It wouldn't be able to punch through the armor plating on a vehicle to destroy the engine or kill the crew inside (or, say, punch through a concrete wall at a mile to kill the three soldiers trying to set up a heavy machine gun nest behind it). A bolt pistol is, however, enough to blow a Space Marine's head off, as happened in Eisenhorn when an escaped psyker took control of Eisenhorn and had him shoot a nearby Marine.

Actually, the Bolter IS designed to penetrate amour. It's fired at a target, penetrates the shell, and then it explodes INSIDE the target. A bolt pistol is weaker or equivalent in power to the standard Boltgun. A Boltgun would do exactly the same or be more effective on another Astartes. Read Horus Rising, the part where Jubal turns is a prime example of how a Boltgun can kill and Astartes.

Astartes DO have a concept of cover. When being suppressed by a weapon that can penetrate their armor, they will seek cover. They are the most elite and powerful fighting force in the galaxy, better trained by about 1000 times more than our most elite force.
On range I agree. If we had a weapon that could kill them then long range is the only way we would have a chance. Letting them get in close would be stupid. However, getting them into a position, out numbered and isolated in an area where we could pot-shot them from miles away would be difficult. They aren't used for the purpose of spearheading huge armies. Their main purpose is strategic and surgical strikes against prime targets. They would drop-pod on to our command centers and engage in close range fire-fights inside the buildings. Move out, extracted via Thunderhawk. Not to mention their heavy weapons, ouch. I guess the best weapon to take them out would be the GAU-8 on an A-10 Warthog.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:A bolter isn't designed to penetrate anything.

Yes it is. It's specifically designed to penetrate armor and explode AFTER penetrating armor and flesh for maximum damage.

Bolt pistols use the same basic ammunition as boltguns (the same pattern boltgun and bolt pistol both do the exact same damage in the lore, in all games-- including tabletop, inquisitor, dark heresy, deathwatch, etc), most likely merely using less propellant and a shorter barrel making it shorter ranged but also making it able to be wielded in one hand without hurting the user (especially for Astartes bolt pistols). All boltguns use .75cal shells, while all heavy bolters use 1.00 cal shells. The heavy bolter is also an anti-tank weapon against light armor like APCs.

iproxtaco wrote:A bolt pistol is weaker or equivalent in power to the standard Boltgun.

The point was that a tiny round from a bolt pistol is enough to blow a power armored marine's head off, meaning an anti-materiel rifle would have no problem doing the same.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:A bolt pistol is weaker or equivalent in power to the standard Boltgun.

The point was that a tiny round from a bolt pistol

Stop.

Bolt pistol ammunition is the same caliber and size as boltgun ammunition.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:A bolt pistol is weaker or equivalent in power to the standard Boltgun.

The point was that a tiny round from a bolt pistol is enough to blow a power armored marine's head off, meaning an anti-materiel rifle would have no problem doing the same.

I disagree that they would. A Space Marine has comparable armor to our modern tanks. An anti-material rifle cannot penetrate modern Tank armor, they are used for lighter armored personnel vehicles or stationary aircraft (Helicopter cockpits, parked planes ....) A direct hit on the head would send the Marine sprawling, or a hit on the mouth grill, between plates or on the eye piece would penetrate. Grill or eye = dead, stomach, neck or on the joints = No, severe injury at the most not likely to be fatal.

Melissia wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:A bolt pistol is weaker or equivalent in power to the standard Boltgun.

The point was that a tiny round from a bolt pistol

Stop.

Bolt pistol ammunition is the same caliber and size as boltgun ammunition.

It's still smaller than the rounds in question, in overall size if not in width. It also derives most of its velocity from fuel carried inside it, so by the time it reaches the target it's much lighter than what it expended the fuel to propel. So overall it's a short, fat round that counts its propellant as part of its mass, and has a small amount of plastic explosive instead of a metal core, meaning it's even less dense, meaning less force over a wider area, meaning drastically reduced penetrative power, meaning it explodes on the surface with less force than a hand grenade, without the shrapnel a hand grenade relies on to do its job. Sure, it would shred unprotected infantry that were close enough for a short barreled gyrojet assault rifle to hit, but it wouldn't compare to a fifty gram slug moving at twice the speed of sound* when it comes to punching through armor and turning what's inside into a mangled paste, especially when the aforementioned lighter, slower, wider slug is still capable of taking a power armored marine's head off (unless the whole "not wearing helmets" thing isn't just a picturesque aesthetic choice for dramatic artwork, but canonical fluff behavior, in which case even the (pathetic by 40K standards) modern assault rifles would make short work of them).

*Approximation, because for obvious reasons I'm not going to list out every possible weight and velocity; I'm just looking at the wikipedia article on .50 BMG cartridges for those particular numbers.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:It's still smaller than the rounds in question, in overall size if not in width.

No it isn't. They're basically interchangeable, much like the variations on the Colt Long .45, which have the same dimensions but different amounts of propellant.

And bolt rounds are not weak at close range. Never have been.

Bolt weapons are not gyrojet weapons. Gyrojets have no recoil, bolt weapons DO. A lot of recoil. Gyrojets don't leave shell casings, bolt weapons DO. Spent bolter shells are considered blessed lucky charms even. What a bolter is, is a multistage weapon. A smokeless powder (or futuristic variant thereof) speeds the bolter shell to lethal speeds, then the rocket kicks in after it leads the barrel and maintains maximum velocity until the point of impact.

Melissia wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:It's still smaller than the rounds in question, in overall size if not in width.

No it isn't. They're basically interchangeable, much like the variations on the Colt Long .45, which have the same dimensions but different amounts of propellant.

And bolt rounds are not weak at close range. Never have been.

Bolt weapons are not gyrojet weapons. Gyrojets have no recoil, bolt weapons DO. A lot of recoil. Gyrojets don't leave shell casings, bolt weapons DO. Spent bolter shells are considered blessed lucky charms even. What a bolter is, is a multistage weapon. A smokeless powder (or futuristic variant thereof) speeds the bolter shell to lethal speeds, then the rocket kicks in after it leads the barrel and maintains maximum velocity until the point of impact.

I meant "overall smaller" than the rounds an anti-material rifle would fire, despite being wider. I probably should have gone back and edited that part after bothering to look up how large the round itself is, but it's still heavier (well, I can't find anything on bolt weight after a minute of flipping through Dark Heresy, and even if it bothered to list it (it doesn't) it would be about the whole cartridge, not the bolt itself), significantly denser, and fired at much higher velocities, without having to drag its propellant along with it (and using significantly more propellant for a denser round). So it's going to punch through armor instead of exploding on the surface. As bolt weapons are depicted as being enough to kill Space Marines, an anti-material rifle would have a much easier job of it.

Of course, it's not like the whole "the Space Marine chapter would lose" thing hinges entirely on a single, relatively common weapon, since they'd be outnumbered by armored vehicles sporting armaments capable of easily bringing them down, to say nothing of other infantry portable anti-armor weapons.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I meant "overall smaller" than the rounds an anti-material rifle would fire

Not necessarily. Anti-materiel rifles also have casings they leave behind as well-- we don't know how much of the bolter shell is left behind compared to what is propelled forward.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:it's still heavier

You say that and then qualify i tby saying you don't know how heavy the bolter shell is. So no, I don't award you this point.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:significantly denser

See above. Because obviously the superdense materials that the bolter shell is described as having are less dense than our current, relatively primitive materials.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:and fired at much higher velocities

Wrong, or do you have velocities for a bolter shell, which utilizes futuristic technology and designs, as well as a rocket to propel it to faster speeds over a longer distance? Frankly a bolter's projectile is probably actually higher velocity than an anti-materiel rifle's.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:It's still smaller than the rounds in question, in overall size if not in width.

No it isn't. They're basically interchangeable, much like the variations on the Colt Long .45, which have the same dimensions but different amounts of propellant.

And bolt rounds are not weak at close range. Never have been.

Bolt weapons are not gyrojet weapons. Gyrojets have no recoil, bolt weapons DO. A lot of recoil. Gyrojets don't leave shell casings, bolt weapons DO. Spent bolter shells are considered blessed lucky charms even. What a bolter is, is a multistage weapon. A smokeless powder (or futuristic variant thereof) speeds the bolter shell to lethal speeds, then the rocket kicks in after it leads the barrel and maintains maximum velocity until the point of impact.

I meant "overall smaller" than the rounds an anti-material rifle would fire, despite being wider. I probably should have gone back and edited that part after bothering to look up how large the round itself is, but it's still heavier (well, I can't find anything on bolt weight after a minute of flipping through Dark Heresy, and even if it bothered to list it (it doesn't) it would be about the whole cartridge, not the bolt itself), significantly denser, and fired at much higher velocities, without having to drag its propellant along with it (and using significantly more propellant for a denser round). So it's going to punch through armor instead of exploding on the surface. As bolt weapons are depicted as being enough to kill Space Marines, an anti-material rifle would have a much easier job of it.

Of course, it's not like the whole "the Space Marine chapter would lose" thing hinges entirely on a single, relatively common weapon, since they'd be outnumbered by armored vehicles sporting armaments capable of easily bringing them down, to say nothing of other infantry portable anti-armor weapons.

Care to name these anti-armor weapons? I can guarantee that they wouldn't be even half as effective on a Space Marine as they would be on your typical main battle tank.
Did you ignore my entire two previous posts or something? Anti-material rifles would not be as effective as you say. They are less advanced than a bolter, likely travel slower and with less destructive capability. Sure at point blank a bolt round went straight through, but the rifle is A LOT further away, losing speed as it goes.

I think you and the anti-material rifle ought to go get a room...

Melissia wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I meant "overall smaller" than the rounds an anti-material rifle would fire

Not necessarily. Anti-materiel rifles also have casings they leave behind as well-- we don't know how much of the bolter shell is left behind compared to what is propelled forward.

I'm a bit sleep-deprived at the moment, so I'm not putting things together as coherently as I intend to. The next sentence should have more clearly stated that that particular statement was wrong, and that I should have gone back and changed it after actually looking up the dimensions of the round itself.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:it's still heavier

You say that and then qualify i tby saying you don't know how heavy the bolter shell is. So no, I don't award you this point.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:significantly denser

See above. Because obviously the superdense materials that the bolter shell is described as having are less dense than our current, relatively primitive materials.

Most of the slightly larger bolt is either fuel or explosives. The fuel would have been largely expended, meaning that's just empty space or low density fuel, and plastic explosives are noticeably less dense than solid metal. So on impact, it's a wider, blunter surface, behind which is a slightly longer round that's now a third empty space, and most of what's left is a tiny wad of explosives. So yeah, I feel pretty confident that, say, an armor piercing .50 BMG (or one of the larger calibers, some of which are larger than bolts) would go straight through at least the helmet of power armor, if not necessarily the chest, which appears to be significantly thicker.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:and fired at much higher velocities

Wrong, or do you have velocities for a bolter shell, which utilizes futuristic technology and designs, as well as a rocket to propel it to faster speeds over a longer distance? Frankly a bolter's projectile is probably actually higher velocity than an anti-materiel rifle's.

I'm sincerely doubting that it's more than two-to-three times (depending on the cartridge in question) the speed of sound.

Not keen on prolonging the threadjack to being about Marines, not Tau, but just dropping this here:

http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm

If an entire Chapter of Marines were to invade Earth, they might be able to take out high commands, but unless they've got the IoM to provide an Arbites occupation force they then have a serious admin problem in holding their conquered territory...

iproxtaco wrote:Care to name these anti-armor weapons? I can guarantee that they wouldn't be even half as effective on a Space Marine as they would be on your typical main battle tank.

Any rocket propelled grenade with a shaped charge? Anti-tank missiles like the Javelin (assuming power armor puts out enough heat for it to pick up on)? Any form of ordnance a vehicle would carry? A modern tank is something like AV10-11, and power armor is quite a bit worse than that.

Did you ignore my entire two previous posts or something? Anti-material rifles would not be as effective as you say. They are less advanced than a bolter, likely travel slower and with less destructive capability. Sure at point blank a bolt round went straight through, but the rifle is A LOT further away, losing speed as it goes.

Most of a bolter's advanced tech goes into making its ridiculously inefficient method work at all, and most of its destructive capability comes from a simple explosion which, while enough to shred soft targets like unarmored infantry, does much less against proper armor on account of most of the energy being spread out across the surface or directed out to the sides.

People I see that we have gone a little from OP....

From 100 our troops and 100 FW we have move to aircraft ( Ok I mentioned that for use, but I didn't mention Imperial aircraft ), then tanks ( again you mention LRBT, this is Tau people ), then we shift to SPACE MARINES?

This is Tau aginst us thread and not SM against Earth and their bolters vs. anti-material rifle.

Please continue the OP if you can...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Care to name these anti-armor weapons? I can guarantee that they wouldn't be even half as effective on a Space Marine as they would be on your typical main battle tank.

Any rocket propelled grenade with a shaped charge? Anti-tank missiles like the Javelin (assuming power armor puts out enough heat for it to pick up on)? Any form of ordnance a vehicle would carry? A modern tank is something like AV10-11, and power armor is quite a bit worse than that.

Did you ignore my entire two previous posts or something? Anti-material rifles would not be as effective as you say. They are less advanced than a bolter, likely travel slower and with less destructive capability. Sure at point blank a bolt round went straight through, but the rifle is A LOT further away, losing speed as it goes.

Most of a bolter's advanced tech goes into making its ridiculously inefficient method work at all, and most of its destructive capability comes from a simple explosion which, while enough to shred soft targets like unarmored infantry, does much less against proper armor on account of most of the energy being spread out across the surface or directed out to the sides.

Fistly, Power armor gives about as much protection as our modern tank armor. That alone makes a lot of our explosive weapons ineffective. Then you move on to things like the Javelin. It relies on a large target. Marines provide a significantly smaller target than a tank. It would not penetrate, but explode on contact, in which the Marines advanced armor and body will protect him from the blast. Not to mention the fact that there are a hundred who would spot and shoot it before impact, using there bolters as portable anti-aircraft batteries and it would be difficult to actually hit them due to the smaller target. Therefore the only weapons we could use are direct fire kinetic or energy weapons, like a pin point hit from an anti-material rifle or direct hit from a Heavy Artillery shell.

Why am I even trying......

Fine. The Tau would win. Superior everything except for their lack of infantry wielded Heavy Weapons, but that's only because they have no Crisis suits.

Brother Coa wrote:This is Tau aginst us thread and not SM against Earth and their bolters vs. anti-material rifle.

Tau battlesuits are basically just large, low-tech suits of power armor, so anti-materiel against power armor is still relevant.

100 Firewarriors versus 100 modern soldiers, the designated marksmen would pick off the Tau squad leaders, leaving them helpless and confused, and then pick off the survivors. If the soldiers were armed with something with more punch than modern assault rifles, like almost any rifle from WW2, then they'd all have something that could punch through their armor, in addition to outranging the Tau and their "hot ball of gas" launchers (since firewarriors carry nothing but pulse rifles).

iproxtaco wrote:Fistly, Power armor gives about as much protection as our modern tank armor.

It's a couple of inches of ceramics wrapped in metal. That's worse than conventional tank armor, let alone reactive armor.

That alone makes a lot of our explosive weapons ineffective.

A shaped charge would punch straight through it, filling anyone inside with molten metal and fire.

Then you move on to things like the Javelin. It relies on a large target. Marines provide a significantly smaller target than a tank.

It relies on there being enough heat to contrast with the surrounding environment, and marines are the size of a small car. If the suit produces enough heat to show up, it could still home in on it.

It would not penetrate, but explode on contact, in which the Marines advanced armor and body will protect him from the blast.

It's a shaped charge (two, in fact: one to set off reactive armor, the other to punch through the armor beneath it once that's cleared away). The penetration comes from the explosion, which concentrates the pressure in a very small area, and generally involves some manner of metal that's melted and warped into a superheated stream, which then punches through the armor.

Not to mention the fact that there are a hundred who would spot and shoot it before impact, using there bolters as portable anti-aircraft batteries and it would be difficult to actually hit them due to the smaller target.

Missiles move extremely fast, and the "fill the air with lead" method only works when you can pump out thousands of rounds a second. A bolter certainly couldn't do it.

Therefore the only weapons we could use are direct fire kinetic or energy weapons, like a pin point hit from an anti-material rifle or direct hit from a Heavy Artillery shell.

Or just about any vehicle carried explosive/heavy machine gun (you know those .50 BMG cartridges I was talking about? here's a WWII era heavy machine gun that could fire eight of them per second (of which modern variants are still in use)).

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
1. Tau battlesuits are basically just large, low-tech suits of power armor, so anti-materiel against power armor is still relevant.

2. If the soldiers were armed with something with more punch than modern assault rifles, like almost any rifle from WW2, then they'd all have something that could punch through their armor, in addition to outranging the Tau and their "hot ball of gas" launchers (since firewarriors carry nothing but pulse rifles).

3. It's a couple of inches of ceramics wrapped in metal. That's worse than conventional tank armor, let alone reactive armor.

1. Not really seeing how a Crisis suit is low-tech.

2. Carapace armor (and whatever the Tau wear to get their equivalent armor save) would scoff at a .303 British or thirty-oh-six. That, and the pulse rifle outranges just about every other small arm in 40k; I don't think they'd have a problem with ranger.

3. Ceramite =/= your average ceramic.

Nerivant wrote:1. Not really seeing how a Crisis suit is low-tech.

Tau tech is shiny but comparatively primitive next to Imperial tech. The Imperium closely sequesters knowledge of how to produce their tech, so even the lower techpriests don't understand it, but it's still from a period that makes Tau look like chimpanzees who've just mastered using sticks to fish for termites.

2. Carapace armor (and whatever the Tau wear to get their equivalent armor save) would scoff at a .303 British or thirty-oh-six. That, and the pulse rifle outranges just about every other small arm in 40k; I don't think they'd have a problem with ranger.

Gameplay requires balance. Lasguns would actually be perfectly accurate out to ranges greater than the long edge of a table, but aren't for balance reasons. Pulse rifles fire a tiny blob of superheated gas quickly; that would have an extremely low density, and hence suffer from air resistance worse than a normal bullet would, but would also quickly dissipate.

3. Ceramite =/= your average ceramic.

No, but it's still nothing compared to something that can shrug off a tank shell, as demonstrated by the fact that it can't shrug off a tank shell.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Nerivant wrote:1. Not really seeing how a Crisis suit is low-tech.

Tau tech is shiny but comparatively primitive next to Imperial tech. The Imperium closely sequesters knowledge of how to produce their tech, so even the lower techpriests don't understand it, but it's still from a period that makes Tau look like chimpanzees who've just mastered using sticks to fish for termites.

2. Carapace armor (and whatever the Tau wear to get their equivalent armor save) would scoff at a .303 British or thirty-oh-six. That, and the pulse rifle outranges just about every other small arm in 40k; I don't think they'd have a problem with ranger.

Gameplay requires balance. Lasguns would actually be perfectly accurate out to ranges greater than the long edge of a table, but aren't for balance reasons. Pulse rifles fire a tiny blob of superheated gas quickly; that would have an extremely low density, and hence suffer from air resistance worse than a normal bullet would, but would also quickly dissipate.

3. Ceramite =/= your average ceramic.

No, but it's still nothing compared to something that can shrug off a tank shell, as demonstrated by the fact that it can't shrug off a tank shell.

How is it low tech in regards to power armor?

Las weapons would suffer from diffraction.

That sounds more like a plasma gun, not a pulse rifle.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Melissia wrote:Your love for antimateriel rifles is obvious, but it takes something along the lines of an ATGM to completely cut through power armor reliably. Basically a hellfire or equivalent.

A man-portable rifle that can take out an APC at over a mile. Power armor wouldn't stand up to something that can take out an armored vehicle, and Space Marines wouldn't have any recourse against someone shooting at them from over a mile away, nor are they particularly small targets, nor do they have any conception of cover (presumably a large portion of their brains are replaced with the glands that produce the all-important acid drool, it would certainly explain a lot).

Wholly incorrect. The Codex Astartes is said to contain entire chapters on the effective use and deployment of cover. The Devastator squad, it is said, is to remain in cover while the Tactical squad attracts enemy attention, and lures them out into the kill zone of the Devastator squad's heavy weapons. Scout Marines make use of cover *all the time* in order to recon enemy positions, run sabotage missions, snipe enemy officers, and otherwise fulfill the mission objectives of the Scout squad. The Tau combat philosophy also heavily favors the use of cover, using it to conceal their numbers, their deployment positions, and prepare their strike missions for the most opportune moment.

The anti-material rifle (which is not a missile launcher, it's a rifle) is chambered, generally, for a 12.5mm to 20mm shell, and is designed to punch through, you guessed it, material. It can be, and is often used as, a sniper rifle, with a round using explosive, fragmenting, armor-piercing, incendiary or a mix of these payloads. It is, despite its muzzle brakes, recoil dampners, bipods, tripods, and other nifty tech, an absolutely punishing weapon to operate, and generally requires 2 to 3 man sniper teams to deploy effectively. It is highly effective against armor (hence its name)... but our modern militaries rely on satellites to provide them with the information that a simple helmet-based auspex suite provides almost any special operative soldier in the field in 40k. A team of Fire Warriors or Space Marines moving under cover will quite possibly be invisible to a human sniper team... most likely because the ship that brought them to Earth has already eradicated, or suborned, the satellites over the AO.

Using the SM as an example, if our human sniper team is deploying a McMillan Tac-50 and spies a Space Marine downrange... then they're about to get flanked by the Devastator or Scout squad. The SM downrange already knows they're there (auspex, again), and is bait to draw their attention.

Also, the standard round for a AM rifle is measured in the .50 (12.5mm) calibre, though some do run up to 20mm (~.90 cal). The standard boltgun fires an armor-piercing, high-explosive, mass-reactive .75 calibre round, while the heavy bolter fires a 1.00 calibre round (~25mm). Really, if we are expanding the scope to include 21c soldiers vs Space Marines, here's what we can expect to face: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Boltgun

Also... the bolter makes use of deuterium (in a way not wholly explained, making it something of an "unobtanium" element), that offers superior armor penetration, and does not explode when it strikes a target... it's "mass reactive", which means it explodes inside the target. A SM can also remain combat effective missing one or two limbs or even one of his hearts and a lung... humans are not so durable. A SM expending a 30 round bolt magazine is, in all likelihood, going to inflict 100% casualties on a mass of human troops he's firing upon, killing/maiming one per round. Also, it bears noting that introducing deuterium into a human's system will almost certainly kill them with its toxic properties, regardless of the severity of the wound.

Now, bringing it back to the OP, 100 Tau are not going to take over the planet, but neither are 100 soldiers from any Earth-based military going to effectively defend the planet, or utterly wipe out 100 sci-fi advanced military units. Especially a unit as methodical as the Tau, who make control of the field of battle and exploiting any opportunity provided (and creating them) a core part of their combat philosophy. Overall, this will come down to a battle of tactics and leadership, with a hefty bonus to the Tau given their technological superiority.

As I said the Tau armor is a huge + for the Tau.

But only for small arms fire up and including light mgs.

But I do not in anyway see how some of you guys think it would ever stop any type of anti tank round.
And that goes for the Space Marines as well. I know in game some troops get armor saves for power armor etc.

But if you are going to bring those items into the "real" world then you have to look at it from a realistic point of view.
I know that writers like to make things sound good and wonderful in game and in books, or make it look good on TV or in the movies but in the real world there is no magic pixe dust to save you.

The tec level of 40k is good, but they are just not that far ahead of us as most of you seem to think.
If they where you would be playing Star Trek and not 40k.
You remove all the space ships etc. And get it down on the ground they can be beat.

And some things don't change no matter what your leavel of tec is.
Ill try to explain.

I am not sure but I think a Heavy Bolter would be somewhere around a 25mm auto cannon.
Just with a much less rate of fire. I just don't see a heavy bolter fireing 225+rounds a min. <--and many fire much much faster then that.

Ok ill try not to get to grim here.
I have seen a M242 cut down entire buildings,trees,light and heavy tanks,and people.
And they do not leave much behind when you get hit with one of these.

I have seen 1st hand what a 25mm round can do. Unless there armor has some type of "Force Field" to stop the Kinetic energy from transferring into there body, then they are insta killed.
And I have never read in any codex that says 40k armor has a force field build into it. Maybe they do I just have not read it.
There internal organs would explode on impact, I have seen this done.

The heart and lungs and other organs liquefy and are pushed out any orifice that gives the least resistance.<--Yes its that ugly.
And that is being nice about it.
In sort. If it bleeds you can kill it.

Real war is hell. Don't ever think its not.

And all that would be from a standerd 25mm round. And it only gets worse from there.
A Fin-Stabilized Depleted Uranium Round Would tear right throw most armors in 40k. And if it did not. See the above.

I know most of you will not want to believe that, and I think that it comes from a lack of any real world exp in combat.
And for what its worth I hope you never do..

And as far as cover saves go...
I have seen them rip up all types of strong points/bunkers and earthworks etc.
In short you don't get cover saves in the real world when fighting one of these. Unless you are in a trench.

As I said before, I think the Tau win in a 100vs100 match.
I just see more dead Tau then you do.

There is, however, no man-portable 25mm autocannon in use by any military on Earth. These are vehicle-mounted (usually aircraft mounted) which either falls outside the concern of this debate (which is a straight infantry vs infantry fight) or must bring into the fight the air-space capability of the Tau... which would, basically, end the war from orbit.

Well he said we could use tanks.

I was just stating my exp with a M242 off a Bradley.
I cant say much about the air power.

Other then you never want them coming after you.

While the Bradly certainly brings a significant amount of firepower to the battlefield, the Tau do not fight like the IG does. The IG will generally deploy along standard battlefront lines, using (or creating) whatever cover they can. In these situations, the Bradly is definitely in its element in chewing up that cover and utterly destroying those forces.

The Tau... far more mobile, and far more devious. While the Bradly lights up the squad of FW it sees using some ruined buildings as cover, two other squads are flanking up on it and are about to turn it into slag with pulse-rifle fire. Armor plate is not much of a deterrent to plasma.

If we're going to compare an M242 to a HB (and from Snogs' description, I'd say that's a fair comparison), then I have to shudder at the amount of devastation a Burst Cannon or, Emperor forbid, a Railgun would cause.

Bringing tanks into play, hammerheads, skyrays, and devilfish would cause an unbelievable amount of devestation, from highly mobile fighting platforms. I in no way discount the sheer awesomeness of the Abrams or the Bradley (which are amazing bits of destructive engineering), but I think even they would be hard pressed to compete with Tau tanks.

I would agree, the Railgun the Tau use would bring the pain vs our tanks.

Id have to find me a nice Abrams to hide behind.
Its bigger so maybe he would fire on it first

Id have to find me a nice Abrams to hide behind.
Its bigger so maybe he would fire on it first

yeah, but I hate to consider one of those plasma rounds from the pulse rifle lighting up the ammo-loader or the fuel tank...

The Tech level in 40k is far beyond what we have now. Don't confuse the styl and appearance of warfare with tech levels. LRBT look like ww1 tanks but they are made from materials stronger than anything we have now.

If Railguns can punch through imperial tanks, come clean out the otherside and still keep going they will wreck anything we have.

Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

4M2A wrote:
Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

I saw that plasma bounced off from SoB power armor...

Brother Coa wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

I saw that plasma bounced off from SoB power armor...

Her armor is contempt.

There's no beating that save. Once a woman has decided to hold you in contempt, you might as well swallow that plasma gun, because it doesn't matter what you do, she's only ever going to give you the Eye of Terror if you even happen to set foot on the same block her favorite restaurant is located on.

Psienesis wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

I saw that plasma bounced off from SoB power armor...

Her armor is contempt.

There's no beating that save. Once a woman has decided to hold you in contempt, you might as well swallow that plasma gun, because it doesn't matter what you do, she's only ever going to give you the Eye of Terror if you even happen to set foot on the same block her favorite restaurant is located on.

Space Marine Power Armor is stronger than that of Sisters.
So Tau Weapons would have no effect on it at all....

Yes... but they're not female.

Brother Coa wrote:Why am I even trying......

What this thread should have said is "100 of some army from 40k against us because that is what it will turn in to in the end."

From what I have read in this thread is two things , "USA USA USA" and "SPEHSS MAHREENS!"

As for 100 vs 100 I say that we would lose in terms of;

Armor vs Armor - fast skimmers with a railgun, A RAILGUN. An M1A1 would be dead before it could get it's main gun pointed at a Hammerhead.

Air Support - Manta anyone? (It does have shield read IA3 I think)

Air to Air - stealth drones and Barracudas would do a fair bit of damage to us.

Troops - FW are not push overs when it comes to a fight. Many have seen REAL combat (Orks, IoM, Eldar?), as well as have advance tech that out classes ours by how many years? As for the fight it depends on the location, the Commander may fight using Mont'ka (Killing Blow). Plan the attack then strike swiftly when the opportunity show (like our forces). Or he may fight using Kauyon (Patient Hunter), which is to lure the enemy into a trap. (I have my codex beside me)

Well thats my 2 cents

Deleted by Manchu

Hate to point this out but technologically inferior foes have stopped world powers before. Tau might have tech but they really don't seem to have a lot of different strategy's. What would happen if none of there advanced tech worked due to an EMP burst, something we use now to disrupt our enemy's.

Eclno wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:Why am I even trying......

What this thread should have said is "100 of some army from 40k against us because that is what it will turn in to in the end."

From what I have read in this thread is two things , "USA USA USA" and "SPEHSS MAHREENS!"

So true... . That was in fact my little experiment, to see hiw long it will take users to get completally off topic.

As for 100 vs 100 I say that we would lose in terms of;

Armor vs Armor - fast skimmers with a railgun, A RAILGUN. An M1A1 would be dead before it could get it's main gun pointed at a Hammerhead.

Air Support - Manta anyone? (It does have shield read IA3 I think)

Air to Air - stealth drones and Barracudas would do a fair bit of damage to us.

Troops - FW are not push overs when it comes to a fight. Many have seen REAL combat (Orks, IoM, Eldar?), as well as have advance tech that out classes ours by how many years? As for the fight it depends on the location, the Commander may fight using Mont'ka (Killing Blow). Plan the attack then strike swiftly when the opportunity show (like our forces). Or he may fight using Kauyon (Patient Hunter), which is to lure the enemy into a trap. (I have my codex beside me)

Well thats my 2 cents

I concur, however we may be able to break down Manta. Maybe it has shields but it doesn't have numbers. After enough attacks shields would fail and pretty soon the Manta itself.
As for troops, we would certainly lose in this scenario - but mabe win in the long run since Tau are pitiful in Partizan warfare.

StormRaven wrote:Hate to point this out but technologically inferior foes have stopped world powers before. Tau might have tech but they really don't seem to have a lot of different strategy's. What would happen if none of there advanced tech worked due to an EMP burst, something we use now to disrupt our enemy's.

Yeah, because 100 random soldiers carry around man-portable nukes to set off EMPs all the time...


If we get to use stuff like that, the Tau destroy us from orbit. And there's nothing we can do to stop them, unless we get that LHC black hole to work.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Tau battlesuits are basically just large, low-tech suits of power armor, so anti-materiel against power armor is still relevant.

You mean stronger, flight-equipped, equally armoured, shield-generator toting, muliple heavy-weapon armed, hugely upgradeable suits of power armour?

Shadowsword8 wrote:

master of ordinance wrote:Actually are equitment isnt all that bad.
I reall shouldnt mention this but i can build a rail pistol out of a camera and a car battery-rail tech is actualy quite easy and if it came to it then they do have atleast 2 railgun tank prototypes in Britain. we have rail tech already their just scared to use it...
and i am also think you should know about that new SAS armour-they emptied 10 .50 round from a sniper into the same spot on it and it was undamaged...(this was leaked a while back)

And we get into the usual issues of immature technology. To get an effective rail weapon, we need lots of power, so big batteries. Which weight a ton. I heard of one US destroyer, with one of it's turrets replaced by a 8 Megajoules mass driver prototype, which make it a workable weapon. BUT, the thing need so much power that it couldn't be installed in anything smalller than a warship.

An infantry railgun? It would certainly require more batteries that an human can carry on his back, or it wouldn't be more advantageous than a gunpowder weapon due to lack of power.

finaly if i can ever get hold of the equitment i am quite capable of building a form of power/termie armour aswellas dreadknight equilvalents.

Without your powered armor being leashed with a power cable to an (big) external energy source, or without it being so slow and clumsy it would be a big, fat target and nearly useless? Sorry, not gonna happen anytime soon.

We do have the tech to make rail canons and powered armor. But it's not nearly refined enough to be more than prototypes and concept models for the moment.

Yes-and thats U.S. tech for you. but i have spoken with people whom have been priveliged to see these in action on the test range.
and remember this-the rail pistol fires a shot smaller than a pea...

and as for the power/termie armour stuff its quite easy once you have the stuff-a sheilded and armoured nuke generator on the back and some basic hydrolics and a more advanced form of power steering.
the dread knight-hydrolics and electro sensor suits-more like a titan knight really.

Interesting thread, but it has gotten a little off topic.

100 modern infantry vs 100 Tau Fire Warrirors... Fire Warriors win hands down

The basic FW weapon outranges assault rifles (40k range is abstract and normal small arms range is 24"), would do a LOT more damage (S5 vs S3) and would ignore modern body armor (which would not be better than 5+). The FW lack a long ranged suppressive weapon LMG equivilent, but have the carbine which is good for short-medium range suppression. LMGs are stopped by FW armor, which at 4+ is far better than anything available to modern infantry. Tau armor would mitigate most of the effects of the suppressive fire from LMGs.

A .50 cal is a Heavy Stubber in 40k (specifically stated in 2nd edition fluff). Even if the anti-material rifles had better stats (probably just rending and better AP), they would not be autocannon equivelents, which is what it takes to negate the Tau armor advantage.

In close combat, trained humans would have the advantage, EXCEPT for the Tau armor. By 40k standards modern armor would probably be 6+, but even if it is considered 5+, the fire warriors still have better armor and would not be total pushovers.

The Tau are not stupid, and both sides would utilize various tactics, which would probably be a wash.

If the Tau have access to markerlights, they can make cover less useful to the humans.

Many things such as thrown grenades, scanners, electronic warfare, etc are simply not covered in 40k because they are abstracted and subsumed in the streamlined rules.

If you add transports and tanks into the equation, the Tau tanks would be slightly more mobile and have better anti-armor systems. The Tau could outflank and destroy M1 Abrams tanks a lot more easily than vica versa, and their railguns could penetrate the frontal armor of Earth's best battle tanks anyway.

Most of the arguments here are real-life humans vs the 40k game stats of the Tau. This isn't really a fair comparison. Just because something isn't covered in 40k (missile defense, etc) doesn't mean the Tau wouldn't have a solution for it fluff wise. The Tau codex probably doesn't mention logistical capabilities or maintenance plans but it doesn't mean their vehicles would all run out of fuel and break down.

If you go codex vs codex, the modern Earth military would be something like:

WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7 6+ (possibly 5+ for some armies)

autogun: as IG lasgun
LMG R: 30" S: 4 AP: 5
various SMGs would be 40k autopistols as described in Necromunda and 2nd edition.
AT-4, LAW, RPG R: 48: S: 8 AP: 3 heavy 1, 1 shot (possibly weaker, see below)
M203, etc: as IG grenade launcher
shotgun: as IG shotgun
javelin/TOW/etc would probably be like 40k missile launchers in power, which may bump the light AT weapons down to a 1 shot autocannon in power.

I wouldn't give a Bradley more than 11 armor in 40k terms,which means it could be glanced by the Tau basic weapon. I would guess that the Abrams would be AV 13 in 40k, with less side and poor rear armor. All the Forge World steel equivelents were basically assigned arbitralily, I am guessing these values based on SM/IG tank fluff and how the game would play out.


edit: The above assumes we are not allowing modern Earth special chacacters such as Walker Texas Ranger, Rambo, Alan "Dutch" Schaefer, etc, and that Codex: Earth 11.M2 is not written by Mat Ward. We already had enough codex creep when Codex: Warsaw Pact went 10 years straight without an update (most people stopped playing them).

Our LMGs would be equivalent or inferior to the Heavy Stubber, which is equivalent to our modern MMG/HMG.

Modern RPGs are actually equivalent to the krak grenade launched by the Guard grenade launcher, not the missile launcher (it should be noted that RPGs can actually be used in dark heresy, and they are equivalent to said grenade launcher). So S6 AP4, not S8 AP3. The M203 would be the frag launcher.

Javelin-tow MAY be equivalent to modern missile launchers.

I would give the Abrams the same armor as a Chimera.

I agree Melissia. Good call on the RPG = krak grenade launcher. I am generous with the AV of the Abrams because I am a tanker.

edit: The above assumes we are not allowing modern Earth special chacacters such as Walker Texas Ranger, Rambo, Alan "Dutch" Schaefer, etc, and that Codex: Earth 11.M2 is not written by Mat Ward. We already had enough codex creep when Codex: Warsaw Pact went 10 years straight without an update (most people stopped playing them)

LOL Thats good stuff right there.

I like