They don't actually use those strategies...
Some do e.g. Chenkov.
But apart from him a lot of Guard commanders are fairly savvy otherwise the guard would get nowhere.
^Correct. Guard tactics, which are often trench warfare, weight of firepower, outnumbering the foe are GOOD tactics to use against 40k enemies. Current tactics would be hopeless against a horde of Orkz.
Lots of 40k artwork and fiction presents battles as being fought by big masses of men charging around shouler-to-shoulder. There's too much fantasy stuff in the setting for it to be about "realistic" tactics. 40k is not serious military business, don't sweat about it.
Strategies require schooled men, which IG regiments dont have (you become an IG soldier by reading a little manual about fighting).
Strategies require skillful generals. IG generals die constantly and new are recruited at an constant rate so they wont gain any experience.
Most strategies require expensive equipment. IG regiments dont have money for this kind of stuff (their generals normally spend their money for booze and cigars)
Most IG generals dont care about the lives of their men, only about earning medals. For an space marine commander the basic troopers life is irreplaceble, IG commanders think their troopers as stupid animals who can do something if terrified enough.
To sum it up, most IG generals have never heard about the word of "strategy". Just sent troopers to their deaths and let the tanks do the job.
Source?
Clearly the Guard use strategies and tactics.
Generals do not die constantly, in fact most of them live for a couple of hundred years.
Strategies do not require expensive equipment.
IG officers are trained for their posts.
The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:Few basic thruts about IG:
Strategies require schooled men, which IG regiments dont have (you become an IG soldier by reading a little manual about fighting).
Strategies require skillful generals. IG generals die constantly and new are recruited at an constant rate so they wont gain any experience.
Most strategies require expensive equipment. IG regiments dont have money for this kind of stuff (their generals normally spend their money for booze and cigars)
Most IG generals dont care about the lives of their men, only about earning medals. For an space marine commander the basic troopers life is irreplaceble, IG commanders think their troopers as stupid animals who can do something if terrified enough.
To sum it up, most IG generals have never heard about the word of "strategy". Just sent troopers to their deaths and let the tanks do the job.
Well we know that the guard like to fight in mainly static lines very much like WWI trench warfare. However the authors fail to understand why trench warfare was so hard to break then. When a line can be flanked it can be broken, when enemies can drop in behind you the line can be broken, in WWI the lines crossed the continent, and getting behind the enemy in numbers large enough to matter was impossible.
In 40k you have drop pods, teleporters, jump packs, aerial transports, and tanks able to survive long enough to reach and breach the lines. Thus their strategy will never accomplish the goal in a way that works well. They can win by sheer weight of numbers sometimes, but just as often they die to the man and the world falls or needs to be cleansed.
While I agree the lack of training in the guard even among higher ups is partly to blame. Their entire doctrine is flawed and designed to make them a worse fighting force if they ever rebel. Thus different disciplines, such as armor or flyboys, dislike the foot sloggers and aren't able to give them integrated support on anything aside from a divisional level or higher. This makes it rather hard for the combined arms of the guard to press on together.
Also, lacking basics like proper transport vehicles is another issue. Some guard forces simply have no mechanized infantry, or so little as for it to not matter. This isn't a matter of their leaders spending money on needless things, but a factor of equipment being lost at a high rate, replacements taking forever, and the fact that the admech often places restrictions on what can be made where.
In all the guard function much like a combination of Civil War and WWI era troops. Civil War in that they are often under supplied, and WWI for the reasons of poor doctrine and tactics. In all give a present day leader the production, equipment, and men that 40k have and watch them become instantly more effective.
And apply present day tactics and doctrines to the Guard and watch them fail hopelessly. Guard tactics work for the setting, where it's largely pitched battles, often involving large fortifications, trenches and large open terrain.
Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.
iproxtaco wrote:And apply present day tactics and doctrines to the Guard and watch them fail hopelessly. Guard tactics work for the setting, where it's largely pitched battles, often involving large fortifications, trenches and large open terrain.
Of course, I never said to use modern small unit tactics or that we should start flying COIN ops over the enemy with prop planes. I said that modern commanders would be able to produce better strategies, and make better use of manpower and material than what we see in most of 40k. Mostly by the simple virtue of not being written by somebody who knows nothing about the military.
I've already shown why static trenches are a poor choice but let me explain in a more comprehensive way what I mean.
To start with, the trench was so effective in WWI and to a limited extent WWII because the artillery was so bad that even day long barrages of trench lines would often fail to dislodge or even inflict great harm on the entrenched foe. This was partially due to poor fire control, a lack of proper shell fuzing, and the very explosives being used in the shells. If you hide in a trench today, you just die standing still. Modern forces, let alone forces in the future, have guided weapons meaning rounds on target will hit the target. We have proper fuzes for air bursts and penetrating rounds. We have observation capabilities that make trying to hide pointless. These are all things that 40kshould have, them not having them is either stupidity on their part, poor writing, or some combination. As an example of firepower, we have tank rounds that are fired through sand berms to nail tanks at range. If they'd had those in WWI then they would have simply fired through the trench at the guns or the important sites inside. We also have easily deployed, accurate, bunker busting weapons of conventional and nuclear armament meaning that you're not going to be safe hiding under dirt that doesn't even slow such a weapon.
Of course this is ignoring that a flanked trench is a breached trench and flanking in 40k is easy. It's the Astartes bread and butter, and many other forces are also easily able to do the same. The Eldar have the webway, fast tanks, and flyers that can pass a trench. The Dark Eldar are the same. The Tau make use of flyers as well. Necrons can teleport monoliths to where they are needed and can do the same with their soldiers. Daemons can teleport into your midst. CSM have many of the same capabilities as the Astartes. The Tyranids use tunnels, or positions taken before the battle and also have pods. Even the Orks have been known to flank the enemy thanks to Kommando teams and other assets. The Guard and Sisters of battle have flyers, drop ships, and the like as well so if they ever used them they would be better off.
purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.
Unfortunately, this portrayal of the IG isn't grimdark enough for the Imperial Guard "fans" and they feel the need to continue with the "into the grinder" nonsense.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, my response perhaps came off as a bit confrontational. I agree completely with the point about GW writers. Whilst massive pitched battles against Orkz requires things like weight of fire and trenches, which are easy to set-up with the man power of the IG, the way it's written makes the Guard look incompetent, which I'm sure generally isn't true outside of these few examples. Trenches in 40kshould be ineffective, in fact, by any reasoning, they are that way, with the mobile warfare of the setting. I guess it only fits with the general concept of cheap and quick is better.
Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.
While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.
And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.
But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.
iproxtaco wrote:And apply present day tactics and doctrines to the Guard and watch them fail hopelessly. Guard tactics work for the setting, where it's largely pitched battles, often involving large fortifications, trenches and large open terrain.
Of course, I never said to use modern small unit tactics or that we should start flying COIN ops over the enemy with prop planes. I said that modern commanders would be able to produce better strategies, and make better use of manpower and material than what we see in most of 40k. Mostly by the simple virtue of not being written by somebody who knows nothing about the military.
I've already shown why static trenches are a poor choice but let me explain in a more comprehensive way what I mean.
*Snip*
I get why trenches are a bad idea, you don't need to explain further.
The Guards standard tactic isn't just to start building trenches. They use it as a delaying tactic or whilst they are laying siege to an installation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Coa wrote:Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.
While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.
And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.
But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
purplefood wrote:
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
It has broken us in just 3 months...and Iraq in just 1 day...
But again, we were broken because they destroyed almost all of our infrastructure... When you are targeting bridges, markets, schools, hospitals, convoys... air power can be very effective.
Not everybody in this thread will know the information that I gave.
Also, is somebody going to show examples of guard actions not defined by trenches, slow advances under artillery fire, and poor command? Even the good commanders are often hampered by poor command at either a higher or lower level. Just look at how bad things got when the Tanith 1st were nearly wiped out by the Patricians due to infighting and a lack of respect.
The point he's trying to make is that laying siege to something wouldn't work if the besieged party can tunnel, teleport, or fly over your siege lines!
Warmastersolon wrote:The point he's trying to make is that laying siege to something wouldn't work if the besieged party can tunnel, teleport, or fly over your siege lines!
Erm, we get that, no one is arguing the point. What are you talking about?
Canadian 5th wrote:Not everybody in this thread will know the information that I gave.
Also, is somebody going to show examples of guard actions not defined by trenches, slow advances under artillery fire, and poor command? Even the good commanders are often hampered by poor command at either a higher or lower level. Just look at how bad things got when the Tanith 1st were nearly wiped out by the Patricians due to infighting and a lack of respect.
In fighting that bad is rare.
1)Captain Lurenz, ordered that some of the regiment's Chimeras be lightened by stripping down their armour, giving his raiders a transport that could carry them quickly across the dunes. This proved successful in defeating the Eldar and since the battle, the First Patrol Company of the Tallarn 16th has been known as the "Gravediggers".5
2)During the Battle for the Ruins of Esko's Moon, Al'rahem and his forces faced off against the Eldar who were using similar hit and run tactics. Al'rahem however won over the Eldar by creating a exacting crossfire with a platoon of his men after trekking halfway across the moon to the ruins and striking at the lightly defended and illassumed unapproachable southern pass of the ruins.
3)The Catachan 18th fought Tyranids in a seven year campaign on Koralkal VIII, during which they covered themselves with the ichor of the Lictors to mask their scent. They subsequently spent two years in decontamination before they were allowed to return to active duty
4)The Catachan 24th are known for their extensive use of traps. They destroyed Warlord Krakskull's entire Ork horde by luring them into a booby-trapped ravine using baiter squads.
5)Cadian 888th shock troops during the reclaimation of the shrine world of Katur (Cadian Blood)
6)The attack on Cirenholm
7)The attack on Ouranberg
There are a lot more as well...
Germany wasn't broken by air power, bombing was actually bad at disrupting industry simply due to not hitting the target. Germany had no chance even if no bombs were dropped.
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)
Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.
Even if your claims were 100% true, out of all modern wars in the 20th century, apparently air power totally dominated... uh, three and a half?
Needless to say, also, your claim of "air power broke them" discounts the efforts of the Marines and Navy (Japan), EVERYBODY (Iraq, both times) and the British army (Falklands). Some ground pounders (myself included) may take offense at the suggestion that we didn't do anything in Iraq.
As far as Guard tactics go, I can't actually think of a fluffy time when all they did was "set up trenches." In Desert Raiders, they defend a camp full of supplies while sending out fast moving armor and walkers to engage the enemy with hit-and-run tactics. In all the Gaunt's Ghosts books, they engage the enemy in small infantry firefights using the basic tenets of fire suppression, advancing under fire, and flank attacks. They also engage in sophisticated anti-armor tactics. In Gunheads, Imperial armor engages the Orks in a similar manner to modern armor, engaging them at extended range and utilizing fire, shock, and maneuver to cut the Orks to pieces. In Storm of Iron, the Imperial Guard is finally seen hiding behind trenches.... except when they sortie out to destroy the enemy siege guns, which is a rather successful night action in which one of the 3 Grand Company commanders of the Iron Warriors loses an arm to a Guard officer! The last Guard book I read was Fifteen Hours, and it does indeed feature Guard in trenches. But they are fighting Orks, so there is no reason to do anything else.
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)
Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.
Even if your claims were 100% true, out of all modern wars in the 20th century, apparently air power totally dominated... uh, three and a half?
Needless to say, also, your claim of "air power broke them" discounts the efforts of the Marines and Navy (Japan), EVERYBODY (Iraq, both times) and the British army (Falklands). Some ground pounders (myself included) may take offense at the suggestion that we didn't do anything in Iraq.
As far as Guard tactics go, I can't actually think of a fluffy time when all they did was "set up trenches." In Desert Raiders, they defend a camp full of supplies while sending out fast moving armor and walkers to engage the enemy with hit-and-run tactics. In all the Gaunt's Ghosts books, they engage the enemy in small infantry firefights using the basic tenets of fire suppression, advancing under fire, and flank attacks. They also engage in sophisticated anti-armor tactics. In Gunheads, Imperial armor engages the Orks in a similar manner to modern armor, engaging them at extended range and utilizing fire, shock, and maneuver to cut the Orks to pieces. In Storm of Iron, the Imperial Guard is finally seen hiding behind trenches.... except when they sortie out to destroy the enemy siege guns, which is a rather successful night action in which one of the 3 Grand Company commanders of the Iron Warriors loses an arm to a Guard officer! The last Guard book I read was Fifteen Hours, and it does indeed feature Guard in trenches. But they are fighting Orks, so there is no reason to do anything else.
You seem not to read so well, I said that it was a short list of battles where air power has been important and has been a definite deciding factor in the cessation of war. Japan was ended by the dropping of the atomic bombs, while ground forces and the navy took the airbase the nukes were sent from, had you not the Peacemaker bomber would have done the job anyway. In the pacific the navy and marines were only useful as a holding action while new bombers were being worked on. Iraq was softened up by air power each time, those abandoned tanks and planned defenses you passed on the way in, that was the flyboys. The Falklands were so under defended on the ground that not having air power would have been death due to the lack of AA sites on the island. A-Stan is much nicer to work in with drones overhead and they have killed many key targets so the boys on the ground didn't need to.
In the first Gaunt's Ghosts novel the enemy was hiding in trenches and the siege had lasted for a long while. Gaunt was sent in to die and only after the drumming started and the enemy guns stopped firing was the push started.
There are only 2 times in the entire Gaunts Ghosts novels that they are in trenches. Both times the Tanith prove it was an incorrect use of their skills by either winning the war entirely (As in the case of the first novel) or disabling a key asset (As in the case of the second instance)
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)
Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.
Even if your claims were 100% true, out of all modern wars in the 20th century, apparently air power totally dominated... uh, three and a half?
Needless to say, also, your claim of "air power broke them" discounts the efforts of the Marines and Navy (Japan), EVERYBODY (Iraq, both times) and the British army (Falklands). Some ground pounders (myself included) may take offense at the suggestion that we didn't do anything in Iraq.
As far as Guard tactics go, I can't actually think of a fluffy time when all they did was "set up trenches." In Desert Raiders, they defend a camp full of supplies while sending out fast moving armor and walkers to engage the enemy with hit-and-run tactics. In all the Gaunt's Ghosts books, they engage the enemy in small infantry firefights using the basic tenets of fire suppression, advancing under fire, and flank attacks. They also engage in sophisticated anti-armor tactics. In Gunheads, Imperial armor engages the Orks in a similar manner to modern armor, engaging them at extended range and utilizing fire, shock, and maneuver to cut the Orks to pieces. In Storm of Iron, the Imperial Guard is finally seen hiding behind trenches.... except when they sortie out to destroy the enemy siege guns, which is a rather successful night action in which one of the 3 Grand Company commanders of the Iron Warriors loses an arm to a Guard officer! The last Guard book I read was Fifteen Hours, and it does indeed feature Guard in trenches. But they are fighting Orks, so there is no reason to do anything else.
You seem not to read so well, I said that it was a short list of battles where air power has been important and has been a definite deciding factor in the cessation of war. Japan was ended by the dropping of the atomic bombs, while ground forces and the navy took the airbase the nukes were sent from, had you not the Peacemaker bomber would have done the job anyway. In the pacific the navy and marines were only useful as a holding action while new bombers were being worked on. Iraq was softened up by air power each time, those abandoned tanks and planned defenses you passed on the way in, that was the flyboys. The Falklands were so under defended on the ground that not having air power would have been death due to the lack of AA sites on the island. A-Stan is much nicer to work in with drones overhead and they have killed many key targets so the boys on the ground didn't need to.
In the first Gaunt's Ghosts novel the enemy was hiding in trenches and the siege had lasted for a long while. Gaunt was sent in to die and only after the drumming started and the enemy guns stopped firing was the push started.
Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.
Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.
And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.
And yes, in that novel, the first one. Where everyone talks about how bad of a commander the man in charge is (implying that there are many better). One example does not a defining tactic make.
Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.
Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.
Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.
Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.
And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.
No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.
And yes, in that novel, the first one. Where everyone talks about how bad of a commander the man in charge is (implying that there are many better). One example does not a defining tactic make.
And having trench warfare specialist forces like Krieg means what now?
It means the Imperium has the option of commiting to trench warfare in certain theatres if the overall commander deems it necessary. In Dead Men Walking they do not build trenches.
The Imperium also has dedicated light infantry, covert operations companies, heavy infantry, armour regiments, drop regiments, jungle fighters, mechanised regiments, super heavy armour regiments.
So many misconceptions and so much misunderstood history displayed here could lead one to a
40k, its grim-dark and a lot of it writings seem to me have been flavored with the UK's cultural and artistic trauma from the industrial revolution and the war to end all wars WW1.
That being said though, combined arms tactics work the best and have been proven over and over again throughout history.
Weather it was ancient times or now or even into the far flung future the basics of Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery used in concert rule the battlefield.
I'm reading through Codex: Cityfight (the precursor to Cities of Death) and it's VERY IG focused with the fluff. Essentially, IG units are fighting the exact same way as we do in urban environments. IG are meant to be very well trained and disciplined soldiers, but some generals are fairly incompetent and just order them to their deaths. It fits into 40k's whole "life is cheap" mantra. IG use armor just as we do now, they use air support just as we do now, and they use orbital support, much in the same way we'd use ICBMs or bombers.
The whole "charge the enemy til they run out of bullets!" stuff is very cool thematically, as it's cooler to picture hundreds of men going over the top and charging as opposed to sitting in a trench popping up for a shot every five minutes.
There certainly is precedent in the fluff for the IG to act like a modern army. However, it's more dramatic and cool to picture the WW1 style massed charges and bayonet assaults and such.
Brother SRM wrote:There certainly is precedent in the fluff for the IG to act like a modern army. However, it's more dramatic and cool to picture the WW1 style massed charges and bayonet assaults and such.
Allot of modern tactics don't really apply because, for the most part, the enemies that the IG are facing are nothing like modern armies.
Trenches don't make much sense now, but they make a hell of a lot more sense given some the enemies that the Guard face.
Orkz, Nids, and and Ravening Cultist of various flavors all use the tactic of swarming forward at maximums speed and relying on enough of their numbers making it to the enemy line to carry the day.
In those types of situations trenches are ideal. Trench fighting only sucks when you've got to take the other guys trenches.
This is very true. Just looking at the units avaible to the IG in the codex show that they are perfectly capable of more then trench warfare.
And Canadian 5th your comments are so offensive to service members its unbelievable. To sit there in your comfy chair and belittle the sacrafices that men and women in the armed forces have made is unbelievable. Obviously you have never been in the military otherwise you would know that it takes all parts not just one to win a war.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:
And Canadian 5th your comments are so offensive to service members its unbelievable. To sit there in your comfy chair and belittle the sacrafices that men and women in the armed forces have made is unbelievable. Obviously you have never been in the military otherwise you would know that it takes all parts not just one to win a war.
A very little people know that brother... They think to know everything yet know nothing about military...
indeed. Somethings people just can't understand without having been a part of the military but even without knowing the brotherhood of being in is no excuse to belittle so many people's sacrifice.
Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.
Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.
Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.
Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.
And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.
No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.
And yes, in that novel, the first one. Where everyone talks about how bad of a commander the man in charge is (implying that there are many better). One example does not a defining tactic make.
And having trench warfare specialist forces like Krieg means what now?
You know the Navy got those planes to Midway, right? And many of the planes at the battle were flown by Marine pilots from the island's airfields. But yes, air power was key - once the Navy and Marines had gotten them close enough.
I disagree about Iraq. One of the statements Hussein made was "Aircraft carriers don't have wheels; we'll fight you in Baghdad." He was resolved not to give in without a ground fight.
Air power was good in the Falklands, I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just saying that in 40k, not having air superiority isn't the end of the world, and the same is true in real life. I think that the entire military might of Britain could have eventually won (in a longer war) simply due to attrition. Fortunately, however, they did have planes to fight the Argentinian planes.
And what that means is that out of a galaxy of at least hundreds of thousands of regiments, one of them specializes in siege warfare/trenches. If, out of a hundred thousand troops, I have one that is good at infiltrating, does that mean all of them only infiltrate?
Commisar Wolfie wrote:This is very true. Just looking at the units avaible to the IG in the codex show that they are perfectly capable of more then trench warfare.
And Canadian 5th your comments are so offensive to service members its unbelievable. To sit there in your comfy chair and belittle the sacrafices that men and women in the armed forces have made is unbelievable. Obviously you have never been in the military otherwise you would know that it takes all parts not just one to win a war.
My service isn't appreciated screeching gets you no where. I said the bomb would have worked regardless and it would have, the B-36 Peacemakers had the range to move from the mainland of the US to Japan with the bomb and it was completed shortly after the end of the war. It could have flown in active service earlier than even '46 when it did fly had it been needed to. The point about the navy in the Pacific is bunk.
You know the Navy got those planes to Midway, right? And many of the planes at the battle were flown by Marine pilots from the island's airfields. But yes, air power was key - once the Navy and Marines had gotten them close enough.
So, the B-36 could have done the job of dropping the bombs without the navy and no matter what Japan couldn't have threatened the US on home soil even without the navy fighting.
I disagree about Iraq. One of the statements Hussein made was "Aircraft carriers don't have wheels; we'll fight you in Baghdad." He was resolved not to give in without a ground fight.
Actually the best thing for the US would have been had he stayed in his palace and been nailed by a bunker buster instead of running free and hiding for so long.
Air power was good in the Falklands, I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just saying that in 40k, not having air superiority isn't the end of the world, and the same is true in real life. I think that the entire military might of Britain could have eventually won (in a longer war) simply due to attrition. Fortunately, however, they did have planes to fight the Argentinian planes.
In 40k losing the air means you lose actually. If you lose orbit then the enemy can kill you even if they lose on the ground. Just like if you lose in the air today the enemy can bomb you with impunity at heights where AA guns and missiles can't kill you.
And what that means is that out of a galaxy of at least hundreds of thousands of regiments, one of them specializes in siege warfare/trenches. If, out of a hundred thousand troops, I have one that is good at infiltrating, does that mean all of them only infiltrate?
It's a bit different, they obviously see trenches as being something worth keeping specialist units around for it. Real nations lose knowledge when it isn't important.
Trench warfare is still very important when fighting foes like Tyranids or Orkz, or rambling hordes of cultists. They're easy to build, offer a decent amount of protection, and can be covered up afterwards.
purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.
purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.
We have to distinguish between tactics and strategy in what we are discussing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The large size, low quality and heavy equipment allocation of IG armies would lend itself to positional warfare and a strategy of attrition.
Wikipedia wrote:Military tactics, the art of organizing an army, are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle
and Strategy as :
Strategy, a word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
It also distinguishes the two as :
In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy.
purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.
I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.
Conscription can be found only on large worlds that are under constant attacks ( Cadian Whiteshields, Armageddon, Valhalla... ).
The rest are fully trained, unless they are needed on front in like 5 days...
purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.
I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.
Conscription can be found only on large worlds that are under constant attacks ( Cadian Whiteshields, Armageddon, Valhalla... ).
The rest are fully trained, unless they are needed on front in like 5 days...
Valhalla?
Why would they need conscription?
The were attacked by Orks once and they dealt with it like bosses.
There is so much fail about history in this thread I honestly have no idea where to even begin.
Strategy =/= tactics. People in this thread seem to be using these words interchangeably.
I barely know what is even being discussed anymore to be honest...err...how about trying to apply modern military thinking to the grim dark universe of 40k will likely be an uphill battle.
On a constructive note, look at Macharius and how he conducted warfare. The IG is quite capable of adapting to any situation, and just like in the real world, there will be incompetent generals and skilled ones.
No, people in this thread aren't. The words maybe been used twice accidentally, and to be perfectly honest, without actively searching, I doubt most people would know there was a difference. Hell, I didn't, I still haven't used the word strategy. Did you see my post? I quoted the definitions and then the difference at Killkrazy's behest, so you aren't the first person to notice that.
Canadian 5th at no point did i "whine" that my service was not appreciated. Heck i never claimed to have been a part of those military actions. And for a plane even a bomber to try and fly that far without as much airspace being cleared before hand would be an incredibly stupid idea. And the navy in that particular theater of war was important. how else were the iilands going to be cleared thus takeing anti-aircraft placements that would have been able to fire at your little bomber or taking out all the airfields that would have unleashed plenty of fighters that would have blown your bomber out of the sky. Why not in the future you keep your little insulting comments to yourself or if you think that the military is worthless then why not give it a try and find out for yourself what it is like.
purplefood wrote: Valhalla? Why would they need conscription? The were attacked by Orks once and they dealt with it like bosses.
I was under impression that they were under constant raides from Orks... And they do have conscripts due to diversity of their Regiments all across the galaxy. Not to mention replacements for Chenkov men...
Let's face it the IG a perfectly capable of carrying on many different types war's not just trench warfare. And having specialists of all kinds means they can meet any challange with the right kinds of troops. This may not always happen since the upper reaches of command are not always the best and paperwork always has the tendency to get mixed up. But the reason the IG prefer the war of attrition approach is because 1)it's easy to just keep throwing men at the problem until it goes away 2)they have no shortage of men so why not.
As others have said, real world strategy and tactics don't work in 40k. In the real world, the army is likely to be fighting an army with similar thinking to strategy and tactics, or one that is inferior in skill or equipment. Modern military don't have to deal with fighting off endless swarms of aliens or fanatics charging them, or super human warriors.
Also, on the topic of air power defeating Japan, it was not the air power, but the atomic bombs (dropped from bombers, but the strategic bombing had no effect on Japan's morale). The U.S. had been firebombing Japan with incendiary bombs since February 1945 with no real affect to Japan's resolve; even though most their industry was in ruins. It was only after the dropping of 2 atomic bombs ( they did not even respond to the first) and the threat of further nuclear bombing that forced Japan to surrender. They had been preparing for a last defense before the atomic bombs, even with the U.S. bombing every other day near the end. This shows that the most fanatical will not give up until the prospect of total annihilation.
I guess I am trying to say that it was the prospect of total annihilation by atomic bomb and not conventional bombing and the destruction it caused that forced Japan to surrender, and that up until the dropping of atomic bombs, the bombing had done nothing to hurt Japans resolve to keep fighting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Canadian 5th at no point did i "whine" that my service was not appreciated. Heck i never claimed to have been a part of those military actions. And for a plane even a bomber to try and fly that far without as much airspace being cleared before hand would be an incredibly stupid idea. And the navy in that particular theater of war was important. how else were the iilands going to be cleared thus takeing anti-aircraft placements that would have been able to fire at your little bomber or taking out all the airfields that would have unleashed plenty of fighters that would have blown your bomber out of the sky. Why not in the future you keep your little insulting comments to yourself or if you think that the military is worthless then why not give it a try and find out for yourself what it is like.
This is true. Bomber losses were very heavy early on for the U.S. when they were launching the attacks from China, which was too far away to send fighter escorts. The bombers were also forced to drop their bombs from about 30,000 ft as it was too dangerous to fly below the clouds without escort. This also made the initial bombings very inaccurate and the bombings did not do major damage until they switched to firebombing and captured islands closer to Japan so they could send escorts.
Kilkrazy wrote:By the time the atom bombs were dropped, Japan had been defeated militarily.
This was achieved with several strategies, for example, unrestricted submarine warfare against their merchant navy.
The island hopping campaign, which cut off detachments to let them wither on the vine, is an example of the strategy of the indirect approach.
Yes, they may have lost the vast majority of their military and industrial power, but they would have still fought. They had almost 1,000,000 troops stationed on their home island, and were training civilians to make suicide attacks against landing troops. They also still had a large fleet of aircraft and they were training their pilots to make kamikaze attacks. It was estimated that casualties of taking the island of Japan could have been near 250,000 men. The atom bomb was an alternative to this costly invasion and was taken instead of the invasion.
I was saying that though the bombing had defeated them militarily, it had not actually defeated their spirits so they would have fought anyway; so the conventional bombing did not defeat them, the atomic bombs did.
purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.
I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.
Conscription can be found only on large worlds that are under constant attacks ( Cadian Whiteshields, Armageddon, Valhalla... ).
The rest are fully trained, unless they are needed on front in like 5 days...
Except Cadian Whiteshields aren't Conscripts in any sense of the word. They're younger Cadians, usually aged 13 to 16, who haven't yet "taken the eagle" and become full Guardsmen. By that same vein, without a doubt, they're almost all trained to the same standard as many of what people consider to be the 'average' Guard regiments. Cadians do not feth around when it comes to preparedness.
Armageddon's "conscripts" are the Hive Militias, which are made up of a great number of partisans who'd fought the Orks on their own terms and gangers who took arms up in defense of the hive.
They do have siege regiments. Because sometimes, sieges need to get done when the entire galaxy is involved; I'm sure somewhere there are some feral orks in a stolen fortress which a siege regiment would be PERFECT for blasting to smithereens, whereas deploying the Elysians (as an example) might mean they get mobbed by orks in difficult, unknown, fortified terrain.
I would also note that although modern nations do "forget" knowledge they no longer require, they have not forgotten trench warfare. This may be indicative of something.
Kilkrazy wrote:By the time the atom bombs were dropped, Japan had been defeated militarily.
Yeah, about that..... They were still prepared to fight to the last for their mainland.
Imagine the casualties for the American side... When Americans saw that option, they knew it will be worst then Germany.
So they decided to drop a BIG F****** BOMB and watch the show from afar...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Except Cadian Whiteshields aren't Conscripts in any sense of the word. They're younger Cadians, usually aged 13 to 16, who haven't yet "taken the eagle" and become full Guardsmen. By that same vein, without a doubt, they're almost all trained to the same standard as many of what people consider to be the 'average' Guard regiments. Cadians do not feth around when it comes to preparedness.
Armageddon's "conscripts" are the Hive Militias, which are made up of a great number of partisans who'd fought the Orks on their own terms and gangers who took arms up in defense of the hive.
Point taken. Not literally conscripts but not quite solders yet.
Kilkrazy wrote:By the time the atom bombs were dropped, Japan had been defeated militarily.
Yeah, about that..... They were still prepared to fight to the last for their mainland.
Imagine the casualties for the American side... When Americans saw that option, they knew it will be worst then Germany.
So they decided to drop a BIG F****** BOMB and watch the show from afar...
There was no military need to invade Japan. The allies could simply have ignored the Japanese mainland and let people starve to death, because they had already sunk practically all of the Japanese navy and merchant fleet.
That is what is called a strategy -- what this thread is supposedly about.
Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?
You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.
The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.
And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."
Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.
Lord Harrab wrote:Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?
You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.
The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.
And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."
Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.
Exactly why the Krieg(trench warfare), Tallarn(mobile warfare), Jantine(Air warfare), Elysian(Drop specialists), Tanith(stealth specialists), Cadian(Creed warfare) and Catachans(commando tactics) are around for. So the Guard can adapt suitable tactics to face suitable foes, instead of relying purely on numerical superiority. Just like when van Voytz ordered a crack team of Tanith to drop in to Ouranberg to assasinate the traitor leader so that there would be less casualties even though the Guard outnumbered the Blood Pact force nearly 2 to 1.
Lord Harrab wrote:Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?
You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.
The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.
And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."
Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.
When you have cheap FTL travel, nothing on the ground is important anymore. Mining moons and asteroids is easier than mining a planet thanks to not needing to ship it up a gravity well. Living in space is equally cheap, just hollow out a nice rock and you can cram millions in at less density than a hive world. It gets even better if you hollow out rocks and use the inards to build space habs.
Lord Harrab wrote:Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?
You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.
The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.
And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."
Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.
When you have cheap FTL travel, nothing on the ground is important anymore. Mining moons and asteroids is easier than mining a planet thanks to not needing to ship it up a gravity well. Living in space is equally cheap, just hollow out a nice rock and you can cram millions in at less density than a hive world. It gets even better if you hollow out rocks and use the inards to build space habs.
What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?
If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.
As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.
A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.
Canadian 5th wrote:
When you have cheap FTL travel, nothing on the ground is important anymore. Mining moons and asteroids is easier than mining a planet thanks to not needing to ship it up a gravity well. Living in space is equally cheap, just hollow out a nice rock and you can cram millions in at less density than a hive world. It gets even better if you hollow out rocks and use the inards to build space habs.
It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.
Kilkrazy wrote:
There was no military need to invade Japan. The allies could simply have ignored the Japanese mainland and let people starve to death, because they had already sunk practically all of the Japanese navy and merchant fleet.
That is what is called a strategy -- what this thread is supposedly about.
We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.
That is all incorrect. You seem to have a very unusual set of references from which you are working.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back to the topic, would anyone like to disagree with my proposal that IG strategies would revolve around positional warfare and attrition?
Kilkrazy wrote:That is all incorrect. You seem to have a very unusual set of references from which you are working.
History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).
Back to the topic, would anyone like to disagree with my proposal that IG strategies would revolve around positional warfare and attrition?
Elysians, Tanith, Harakoni... their strategies are everything but positional warfare and attrition.
But most Guard army's fight with those 2 ( you can't Blitz a planet ).
Lord Harrab wrote:What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?
What doesn't it have to do with it is the bigger question? The IoM is stupid for even holding actual worlds. Things like space habitats are harder to attack and easier to defend and can produce and ship things much more efficiently simply due to not needing to send them up a gravity well. This the guard aren't needed at all in their current form as there is nothing worth fighting over on any planet. Factory gone, build a new one. Chaos artifact, nuke it from orbit. Hab rebels, blast it. No need for the guard anymore.
If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.
Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.
As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.
As it explained that cost could be removed entirely by a simple change.
A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.
So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.
It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.
They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.
We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.
You're a spam bot right?
The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.
Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.
History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).
Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.
We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland. 2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor. If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve. But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.
You're a spam bot right? The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.
They would attack eventually if they didn't invent the A-bomb. They only wanted to end the war as fast as possible, even if mening losing 200.000 marines ( that was estimated casulty rate in conqering Japan that Americans calculate ).
Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.
See Project Ni. Japanese scientist already have some idea how to make bomb, the only problem was uranium - they didn't have any. They asked the Germans for some in 1943, Germans send 3 ships and they were sunk by Soviet submarines. So Japan never had resources to make one, but they definitively knew how to make one.
History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).
Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.
Tell that to the man died in Normandy, Stalingrad, Berlin, Arnhem...
Lord Harrab wrote:What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?
What doesn't it have to do with it is the bigger question? The IoM is stupid for even holding actual worlds. Things like space habitats are harder to attack and easier to defend and can produce and ship things much more efficiently simply due to not needing to send them up a gravity well. This the guard aren't needed at all in their current form as there is nothing worth fighting over on any planet. Factory gone, build a new one. Chaos artifact, nuke it from orbit. Hab rebels, blast it. No need for the guard anymore.
If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.
Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.
As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.
As it explained that cost could be removed entirely by a simple change.
A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.
So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.
It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.
They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.
We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.
You're a spam bot right?
The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.
Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.
History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).
Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.
Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.
Lord Harrab wrote:What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?
What doesn't it have to do with it is the bigger question? The IoM is stupid for even holding actual worlds. Things like space habitats are harder to attack and easier to defend and can produce and ship things much more efficiently simply due to not needing to send them up a gravity well. This the guard aren't needed at all in their current form as there is nothing worth fighting over on any planet. Factory gone, build a new one. Chaos artifact, nuke it from orbit. Hab rebels, blast it. No need for the guard anymore.
If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.
Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.
As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.
As it explained that cost could be removed entirely by a simple change.
A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.
So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.
It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.
They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.
We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.
You're a spam bot right?
The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.
Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.
History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).
Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.
Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.
Not too mention it would be harder to produce food, water, and other essentials without resources on the planets. The IOM also has huge populations that could hardly fit on moons alone. They could and usually do host military bases on moons or mine them for their own resources, but at the IOM's size it's more practicle to hold planets
I would also like to mention that 40k does not have cheap FTL. Every time you enter FTL, you are risking:
1) Accidental time travel 2) Being thousands of kilometers off course 3) Being eaten by daemons 4) Being eaten by void predators (like void whales) 5) Being crushed by titanic forces unknown to mankind 6) Being driven insane 7) Being trapped indefinitely. EDIT: 8) Being infected with a warp-virus
I would say that "cheap" FTL in 40k is hard to come by.
Brother Coa wrote:They would attack eventually if they didn't invent the A-bomb. They only wanted to end the war as fast as possible, even if mening losing 200.000 marines ( that was estimated casulty rate in conqering Japan that Americans calculate ).
That's one source only. Other estimates places the losses at much larger numbers for total loses if the invasion happened. The Americans knew of the preparations being done in Japan with the Japanese going so far as to arm students with icepicks and tell girls to tie their ankles before killing themselves so their legs don't fall open when they die.
These people were more than ready to fight until the bombs fell and they knew they would never be able to kill another American because the US didn't have to fight where they could fight back.
Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.
See Project Ni. Japanese scientist already have some idea how to make bomb, the only problem was uranium - they didn't have any. They asked the Germans for some in 1943, Germans send 3 ships and they were sunk by Soviet submarines. So Japan never had resources to make one, but they definitively knew how to make one.
Find me a debate, or program anywhere that accepts Wikipedia as a source. When I use them I actually find what the sources are, check if they are correct, and then post only the relevant sections after proofing my sources. Your link isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the Japanese getting the bomb though as working on something doesn't mean that the something being worked on is a credible threat.
Here's a few quotes from the article:
'it [the Japanese atomic program] suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945'
'This resulted in the formation of the Committee on Research in the Application of Nuclear Physics, chaired by Nishina, that met ten times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded in a report that while an atomic bomb was, in principle, feasible, "it would probably be difficult even for the United States to realize the application of atomic power during the war". This caused the Navy to lose interest and to concentrate instead on research into radar'
'By February 1945, a small group of scientists had succeeded in producing a small amount of material in a rudimentary separator in the Riken complex - material which Riken's cyclotron indicated was not Uranium-235.'
'The Japanese also requested materials from their German allies and 560 kg (1,200 lb) of unprocessed uranium oxide was dispatched to Japan in April 1945 aboard the submarine U-234, which however surrendered to US forces'
'The work went slowly, but shortly before the end of the war he had designed an ultracentrifuge (to spin at 60,000 rpm) which he was hopeful would achieve the required results. Only the design of the machinery was completed before the Japanese surrender.'
In short, the Japanese had no material to build the bomb, lacked any large scale source of heavy water that would be needed to make their testing successful, and even had that not been an issue had no planes left that could carry the weapon to America. Thus the Japanese were never a true nuclear threat and any claims that they were are as laughable as saying German was also close. Any claims of testing in late 45 early 46 have also already been debunked by historians with very few sources still making claims that they indeed had the capability to even attempt to test the weapon.
History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).
Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.
Tell that to the man died in Normandy, Stalingrad, Berlin, Arnhem...
The atomic bomb was never ready to be used in those cases and flying allied bombers from Britain, or even Africa to Stalingrad would never have been feasible at the time that battle was taking place. D-Day and Normandy campaign were carried out under heavy air coverage, but again no nuclear weapons existed or they would have been used on Berlin in an attempt to end the war. The weapons simply weren't ready and/or even if they had been in many cases simply flying the bomb in would have been difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.
Wonderful, they kill one habitat, likely not even do that fully, while the fleet comes in and removes the threat. Even blasting a hole in the side can be dealt with if your damage control is decent. Then the foe would still need to land, cut through sealed doors and collapsed bulkheads, and keep fighting room by room to flush you out.
Canadian 5th wrote:
That's one source only. Other estimates places the losses at much larger numbers for total loses if the invasion happened. The Americans knew of the preparations being done in Japan with the Japanese going so far as to arm students with icepicks and tell girls to tie their ankles before killing themselves so their legs don't fall open when they die.
These people were more than ready to fight until the bombs fell and they knew they would never be able to kill another American because the US didn't have to fight where they could fight back.
One source that is true.
Find me a debate, or program anywhere that accepts Wikipedia as a source. When I use them I actually find what the sources are, check if they are correct, and then post only the relevant sections after proofing my sources. Your link isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the Japanese getting the bomb though as working on something doesn't mean that the something being worked on is a credible threat.
Here's a few quotes from the article:
[i]'it [the Japanese atomic program] suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945'
'This resulted in the formation of the Committee on Research in the Application of Nuclear Physics, chaired by Nishina, that met ten times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded in a report that while an atomic bomb was, in principle, feasible, "it would probably be difficult even for the United States to realize the application of atomic power during the war". This caused the Navy to lose interest and to concentrate instead on research into radar'
'By February 1945, a small group of scientists had succeeded in producing a small amount of material in a rudimentary separator in the Riken complex - material which Riken's cyclotron indicated was not Uranium-235.'
'The Japanese also requested materials from their German allies and 560 kg (1,200 lb) of unprocessed uranium oxide was dispatched to Japan in April 1945 aboard the submarine U-234, which however surrendered to US forces'
'The work went slowly, but shortly before the end of the war he had designed an ultracentrifuge (to spin at 60,000 rpm) which he was hopeful would achieve the required results. Only the design of the machinery was completed before the Japanese surrender.'
In short, the Japanese had no material to build the bomb, lacked any large scale source of heavy water that would be needed to make their testing successful, and even had that not been an issue had no planes left that could carry the weapon to America. Thus the Japanese were never a true nuclear threat and any claims that they were are as laughable as saying German was also close. Any claims of testing in late 45 early 46 have also already been debunked by historians with very few sources still making claims that they indeed had the capability to even attempt to test the weapon.
So if on Wikipedia stand "The second world war started on September 1'st 1939" that is not true?
And everything I said abiut Japanese and their A-bomb project was true.
The atomic bomb was never ready to be used in those cases and flying allied bombers from Britain, or even Africa to Stalingrad would never have been feasible at the time that battle was taking place. D-Day and Normandy campaign were carried out under heavy air coverage, but again no nuclear weapons existed or they would have been used on Berlin in an attempt to end the war. The weapons simply weren't ready and/or even if they had been in many cases simply flying the bomb in would have been difficult.
And what have that to do with planing, using best choices and in the end lose so many man?
Kilkrazy wrote:If FTL travel is so difficult, why exaggerate the problems by shipping huge inefficient conscript infantry forces around the place?
Once again: "conscript" is not the right word in the case of a great many Guard Regiments. They're trained beyond the realm of expertise that we see on most career soldiers now.
As for "if FTL travel is so difficult"--it's not in a great many cases. Things going wrong in the Warp aren't that common, provided the Navigator isn't drunk at the wheel.
Not too mention it would be harder to produce food, water, and other essentials without resources on the planets. The IOM also has huge populations that could hardly fit on moons alone. They could and usually do host military bases on moons or mine them for their own resources, but at the IOM's size it's more practicle to hold planets.
Wrong, everything you need for food production, if already up there. You can split water breathable air, and water can be found in great amounts in comets, asteroids, and many other places and can be built out of harvested hydrogen and oxygen. If you have water, and you have crushed dirt you can grow food, aeroponics also work wonders and we're working on such low mass applications today.
Also, it's easier than you might think to fit a lot of people into a space when you're not just using the surface of the object. Heck, using the vast amounts of labor they have at the ready the IoM can easily mine as much ore from asteroids per world, per year as we can pull out of the ground now. With even this limited level of production they would get enough raw material to build 3 cylinders 0.5m thick, by 10km long, by 2km in diameter with enough to spare for a hydroponics dome as well.
Packing in roughly 2,000 people per 1 kilometer x 1 kilometer by 0.28 kilometers would give people roughly double the space of what people in Beijing enjoy. This would allow you to get 2.7 million people a year into space even with low levels of production. A single Ceres size body, assuming 0.1% of it was useful for building, would allow you to build around 8000 units meaning that one rock on our home system could build enough space to 21.6 billion people. Of course larger production numbers such as what 40k has would allow this to be built in much less time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Coa wrote:So if on Wikipedia stand "The second world war started on September 1'st 1939" that is not true?
And everything I said abiut Japanese and their A-bomb project was true.
It could be true, however it Wikipedia itself and many citations found within wouldn't count as proof and you would fail your paper.
And what have that to do with planing, using best choices and in the end lose so many man?
Stalingrad was a key battle, and supply lines were bad on both sides. Losses were higher than needed, but nobody said military command was perfect.
D-Day and Normany went pretty well, the only thing that could have gone better would have been if the allies realized that the Germans classed and built the Panther in numbers suitable for a medium tank.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like to mention that 40k does not have cheap FTL. Every time you enter FTL, you are risking:
1) Accidental time travel
2) Being thousands of kilometers off course
3) Being eaten by daemons
4) Being eaten by void predators (like void whales)
5) Being crushed by titanic forces unknown to mankind
6) Being driven insane
7) Being trapped indefinitely.
EDIT: 8) Being infected with a warp-virus
I would say that "cheap" FTL in 40k is hard to come by.
Oh, so they don't move large amounts of material, and manpower via FTL now then? Entire armies are supplied from forge worlds that need to get supplies shipped in via warp travel. These forge worlds also get food from separate forge worlds. The produced war machines then move to other worlds where they are used for training. From here these forces move out to the actual battlefield. This is common and the risks are less than age of sail transport and that was still enough to colonize vast stretches of Earth with.
Not too mention it would be harder to produce food, water, and other essentials without resources on the planets. The IOM also has huge populations that could hardly fit on moons alone. They could and usually do host military bases on moons or mine them for their own resources, but at the IOM's size it's more practicle to hold planets.
Wrong, everything you need for food production, if already up there. You can split water breathable air, and water can be found in great amounts in comets, asteroids, and many other places and can be built out of harvested hydrogen and oxygen. If you have water, and you have crushed dirt you can grow food, aeroponics also work wonders and we're working on such low mass applications today.
Also, it's easier than you might think to fit a lot of people into a space when you're not just using the surface of the object. Heck, using the vast amounts of labor they have at the ready the IoM can easily mine as much ore from asteroids per world, per year as we can pull out of the ground now. With even this limited level of production they would get enough raw material to build 3 cylinders 0.5m thick, by 10km long, by 2km in diameter with enough to spare for a hydroponics dome as well.
Packing in roughly 2,000 people per 1 kilometer x 1 kilometer by 0.28 kilometers would give people roughly double the space of what people in Beijing enjoy. This would allow you to get 2.7 million people a year into space even with low levels of production. A single Ceres size body, assuming 0.1% of it was useful for building, would allow you to build around 8000 units meaning that one rock on our home system could build enough space to 21.6 billion people. Of course larger production numbers such as what 40k has would allow this to be built in much less time.
I know you would be able to harvest some essentials, enough for a military base as I said, but you definitely would produce less at more cost than if you simply did it planetside. It doesn't matter if you can fit a lot of people in space if you can only feed half of them. My idea would be to host the military in space, which I'm sure they do. Then the enemy would have to take the space fort first or else be wiped off planet side from orbit. This way they can have the abundant resources from the planet and still be heavily fortified. The only problem would be if Orks or tyranids ignored the base and attacked planetside then some civilians would be lost, even then the orbital bombardments from the base would dislodge them.
Plus when you pack people in like that if you did lose a battle or simply the buildings structure was broken their would be more casualties than their would be if civilians were spread out planetside.
The IG is supposed to be a messy group of bad tactics thrown into limitless numbers, where a bayonet charge can feasibly work, because you have millions upon millions to throw at an objective.
As a representation in 40K, they draw a lot of influence from the armies of the 1914-1980's eras. Meaning everything from Taliban to Doughboys is represented in some fashion. We aren't meant to question the logic of a Sword against a bunch of future rifles, because in a world where an Eldar Farseer can conjure a storm that destroys armor columns, there is a bit of magic tossed in.
That isn't to say future tactics are left out however, as time has gone on we have seen several innovations to the Guard lore and the introduction of the Tau. Both "recent" additions have modernized the look and feel of some of 40K's armies. It's a way we can see guided missiles and elite SF teams make their way into TT and lore. So the idea of trench warfare while impractical by our standards of war, isn't really that far fetched in some of the examples already given by a few posters. What's more is we can see what happens when these "outdated" armies fight newer armies. Tau defeated the Guard a few times when fighting against these outdated tactics, but also lost a few times when the limitless numbers and crude yet effective tactics played out well.
----
As for the Japan discussion..
Japanese Soldiers fought for the Imperial God Emperor (literally) and thought defeat was impossible against the foreign dogs. America then savagely reminded them that we only roll sixes to hit and sixes to wound with our pro-core atom bombs. To which the Japanese replied "h4xz" and promptly surrendered.
It's pretty much as simple as that. Luckily for both Japan and America it was a good game so we shook hands and became friends afterwords.
Japanese Soldiers fought for the Imperial God Emperor (literally) and thought defeat was impossible against the foreign dogs. America then savagely reminded them that we only roll sixes to hit and sixes to wound with our pro-core atom bombs. To which the Japanese replied "h4xz" and promptly surrendered.
Brother Coa wrote:They would attack eventually if they didn't invent the A-bomb. They only wanted to end the war as fast as possible, even if mening losing 200.000 marines ( that was estimated casulty rate in conqering Japan that Americans calculate ).
That's one source only. Other estimates places the losses at much larger numbers for total loses if the invasion happened. The Americans knew of the preparations being done in Japan with the Japanese going so far as to arm students with icepicks and tell girls to tie their ankles before killing themselves so their legs don't fall open when they die.
These people were more than ready to fight until the bombs fell and they knew they would never be able to kill another American because the US didn't have to fight where they could fight back.
Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.
See Project Ni. Japanese scientist already have some idea how to make bomb, the only problem was uranium - they didn't have any. They asked the Germans for some in 1943, Germans send 3 ships and they were sunk by Soviet submarines. So Japan never had resources to make one, but they definitively knew how to make one.
Find me a debate, or program anywhere that accepts Wikipedia as a source. When I use them I actually find what the sources are, check if they are correct, and then post only the relevant sections after proofing my sources. Your link isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the Japanese getting the bomb though as working on something doesn't mean that the something being worked on is a credible threat.
Here's a few quotes from the article:
'it [the Japanese atomic program] suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945'
'This resulted in the formation of the Committee on Research in the Application of Nuclear Physics, chaired by Nishina, that met ten times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded in a report that while an atomic bomb was, in principle, feasible, "it would probably be difficult even for the United States to realize the application of atomic power during the war". This caused the Navy to lose interest and to concentrate instead on research into radar'
'By February 1945, a small group of scientists had succeeded in producing a small amount of material in a rudimentary separator in the Riken complex - material which Riken's cyclotron indicated was not Uranium-235.'
'The Japanese also requested materials from their German allies and 560 kg (1,200 lb) of unprocessed uranium oxide was dispatched to Japan in April 1945 aboard the submarine U-234, which however surrendered to US forces'
'The work went slowly, but shortly before the end of the war he had designed an ultracentrifuge (to spin at 60,000 rpm) which he was hopeful would achieve the required results. Only the design of the machinery was completed before the Japanese surrender.'
In short, the Japanese had no material to build the bomb, lacked any large scale source of heavy water that would be needed to make their testing successful, and even had that not been an issue had no planes left that could carry the weapon to America. Thus the Japanese were never a true nuclear threat and any claims that they were are as laughable as saying German was also close. Any claims of testing in late 45 early 46 have also already been debunked by historians with very few sources still making claims that they indeed had the capability to even attempt to test the weapon.
History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).
Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.
Tell that to the man died in Normandy, Stalingrad, Berlin, Arnhem...
The atomic bomb was never ready to be used in those cases and flying allied bombers from Britain, or even Africa to Stalingrad would never have been feasible at the time that battle was taking place. D-Day and Normandy campaign were carried out under heavy air coverage, but again no nuclear weapons existed or they would have been used on Berlin in an attempt to end the war. The weapons simply weren't ready and/or even if they had been in many cases simply flying the bomb in would have been difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.
Wonderful, they kill one habitat, likely not even do that fully, while the fleet comes in and removes the threat. Even blasting a hole in the side can be dealt with if your damage control is decent. Then the foe would still need to land, cut through sealed doors and collapsed bulkheads, and keep fighting room by room to flush you out.
Every fight would now be a boarding action.
Here is a scholarly source on I found on past and present nuclear weapons programs (Japan on p. 4):
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/data/jo_gartzke_0207_codebk_0906.pdf It does not say much other than the fact that Japan had a working nuclear weapons project in 1943. It would seem that the Japan had not reached even getting close to building a test bomb and were still in the research stage at the end of the war, and the nuclear threat from Japan was still far off in 1945.
For all the discussion on air power, I haven't seen a single reference to the Six Day War. I find that very strange as the Israelis proved very quickly that the nation with air dominance will have a much easier go in war than the nation without, as seen in 1973 when the Arabs learned from their mistakes.
Remember that air power can win wars alone, particularly if you're goal in war is not invasion or taking of territory. War needs a political aim, which is what strategy is in essence, and if that goal is not conquering a nation than air power alone could theoretically win such a war. I don't have examples of this as none really exist, but the point is that the aim of the war will dictate the operational and tactical doctrines used.
Also, every time someone uses wikipedia to back up a disputed claim, god kills a puppy. Think of the puppies!
I think the strategy used by the IG in various conflicts would depend on which regiments are employed and who the enemy is. Rather difficult to use attrition against an enemy unwilling to commit to such a war, like the Eldar/Dark Eldar or Tau. I think the IG is far more adaptable than what the fluff leads us to believe, as we hear very little of smaller conflicts where very mobile regiments were used in well coordinated assaults.
Blacksails wrote:For all the discussion on air power, I haven't seen a single reference to the Six Day War. I find that very strange as the Israelis proved very quickly that the nation with air dominance will have a much easier go in war than the nation without, as seen in 1973 when the Arabs learned from their mistakes.
Remember that air power can win wars alone, particularly if you're goal in war is not invasion or taking of territory. War needs a political aim, which is what strategy is in essence, and if that goal is not conquering a nation than air power alone could theoretically win such a war. I don't have examples of this as none really exist, but the point is that the aim of the war will dictate the operational and tactical doctrines used.
Also, every time someone uses wikipedia to back up a disputed claim, god kills a puppy. Think of the puppies!
I think the strategy used by the IG in various conflicts would depend on which regiments are employed and who the enemy is. Rather difficult to use attrition against an enemy unwilling to commit to such a war, like the Eldar/Dark Eldar or Tau. I think the IG is far more adaptable than what the fluff leads us to believe, as we hear very little of smaller conflicts where very mobile regiments were used in well coordinated assaults.
I agree on the last point, the fluff and books will highlight battles were something went wrong or incorrect tactics were used, as they make for more interesting stories than "The IG completely slaughtered the enemy with superior tactics and restored order" and it also adds to the Grim-darkness of 40k.
On using Wiki as a source, all you have to do to find credible sources is to use Google Scholar instead of normal Google!
Here it is stated that Brasil is the largest country in South America. It is the world's fifth largest country, both by geographical area and by population with over 190 million people. Also, it is the only Portuguese-speaking country in the Americas and the largest lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) country in the world.
So, acording to you nothing of this is real and your country, in fact, is nothing special at all... You just owned yourself
His point went over your head. Wikipedia is not a valid source, he's not talking about how accurate the information on the page is. It's like the middle-man, or hearing something from someone who heard it from someone else.
That's rights. So none of this regarding to Brasil is true since Wikipedia is "not valid source".
And it is also stated that "The U.S. economy is the world's largest national economy". And we all know that everything is made in China and that the biggest fuel reserves on a planet has Russia. You just proven my point.
When discussing more abstract facts and claims (things other than easily verifiable knowledge like population, land size, so on...), wikipedia is not to be used, period. What wikipedia does do very well is form a great starting area to garner some basic background knowledge on a particularly topic, then going to an academic source and researching further.
In university, you will get laughed out of the institution if you present a paper with wikipedia listed even once as a source. Besides, as someone pointed previously, google scholar is simple and easy to use and will give you at least some degree of reliable sources, though places like JStor and university libraries will always be the best.
So in closing, if someone ever asks you for a source for a claim, never cite wikipedia, find something more credible.
By the same logic Bible is also not valid source since it has been rewritten gazillion times by various men forming their own view of Jesus and his sacrifice.
And still people are taking sources from Bible without a word, why should Wikipedia be any different when she is more reliable ( you can even check for all of that data if it's true )?
I don't know why you people think that Wiki sucks?
purplefood wrote:Be fair to Coa, at least he has stopped using id4chan as a source...
id4chan speak truth about everything I read there, only in more funnier way.
Like I said, when I read there about Matt Ward I immediately download all codexes he wrote to read them personally.
When I saw what men have done, I salute id4chan for being honest in a modern way...
Brother Coa wrote:By the same logic Bible is also not valid source since it has been rewritten gazillion times by various men forming their own view of Jesus and his sacrifice.
And still people are taking sources from Bible without a word, why should Wikipedia be any different when she is more reliable ( you can even check for all of that data if it's true )?
I don't know why you people think that Wiki sucks?
What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...
Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.
purplefood wrote:Be fair to Coa, at least he has stopped using id4chan as a source...
id4chan speak truth about everything I read there, only in more funnier way.
Like I said, when I read there about Matt Ward I immediately download all codexes he wrote to read them personally.
When I saw what men have done, I salute id4chan for being honest in a modern way...
id4chan corrupt the facts and present it in a different light. They create motivations from nothing.
They are funny but very bad for actual sources...
Blacksails wrote:
What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...
Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.
The Bible, really?
Isn't it obvious? People believe in that what is written in a bible. And there is no prof that Jesus ever existed beside stories about him from his followers. Even so, people don't judge the sources of the text, if they are true or not. And they judge Wikipedia who has valid sources for all of it's claims.
And hard to call the world's biggest encyclopedia non academic stuff... And does Wikipedia give links and book pages where you can find the actual source? I call that valid source of information, no matter if it's not academic book ( imagine if Wikipedia is a book... ).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
id4chan corrupt the facts and present it in a different light. They create motivations from nothing.
They are funny but very bad for actual sources...
True to some point, but that point was proven right at the end. Matt Ward did wrote Draigo fluff, the Necron-Blood Angel Alliance Fluff and he rewrote old fluff where Ultramarines were slaughtered to new fluff were they kick butt...
But I will stop here, I won't provoke thread shutdown...
And since this is MY thread, all info from Wikipedia is considered valid.
Blacksails wrote:
What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...
Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.
The Bible, really?
Isn't it obvious? People believe in that what is written in a bible. And there is no prof that Jesus ever existed beside stories about him from his followers. Even so, people don't judge the sources of the text, if they are true or not. And they judge Wikipedia who has valid sources for all of it's claims.
And hard to call the world's biggest encyclopedia non academic stuff... And does Wikipedia give links and book pages where you can find the actual source? I call that valid source of information, no matter if it's not academic book ( imagine if Wikipedia is a book... ).
I don't even know if you're being serious anymore.
People believe in the Bible as a source of faith, not as a source to derive facts that are unrelated to the Bible. Might I remind you we're discussing wikipedia as a source for a variety of facts, which the Bible does not fall under.
Wikipedia lists some sources, but those sources are not necessarily correct. During my time at university, I regularly found errors on Wikipedia pages for historical and political articles, which you claim are factual and valid. The academic community at large heavily disagrees.
The point is, if you're going to try and say something like 'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII', wikipedia doesn't cut it and you will be made the laughing stock of, well, everyone.
If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.
Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.
Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?
As for Nukes, the Imperium can hardly go around nuking everything. They do in some cases, Krieg being one of them, but it quickly becomes apparent that such methods make the planet unlivable.
A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.
So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.
Of course it's effective, air superiority is a huge factor in modern warfare. But you can't win wars on airpower alone.
It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.
They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.
I fail to see how a space station is ever going to produce more than a Forge World.
I agree that Naval superiority is a huge factor in the Imperium, but a planet yields so much more in the way of resources, as well as population than a couple of asteroids ever could.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Coa: Just becuase Wikipedia is correct, and it isn't alot of the time, does not make it an academic source. Academic sources are peer-reviewed and much more reliable.
It's fine to use Wikipedia to demonstrate very basic things like the population of China or Australia, but for subjects that have even the slightest area of dispute or controversy, Wikipedia doesn't come even close to making the cut.
Blacksails wrote:
I don't even know if you're being serious anymore.
People believe in the Bible as a source of faith, not as a source to derive facts that are unrelated to the Bible. Might I remind you we're discussing wikipedia as a source for a variety of facts, which the Bible does not fall under.
Wikipedia lists some sources, but those sources are not necessarily correct. During my time at university, I regularly found errors on Wikipedia pages for historical and political articles, which you claim are factual and valid. The academic community at large heavily disagrees.
The point is, if you're going to try and say something like 'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII', wikipedia doesn't cut it and you will be made the laughing stock of, well, everyone.
But by all means, keep trying to debate this.
I just represent them as equal representation of information, but you are to blind to see that so we will move along...
And I never said: "'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII'" nor does it say anywhere on Wiki. I don't know where did you imagine this. And in universities here Wiki is praised as the most reliable source for information, people use the sources from it here to do their final exams for university and for doctor's diploma's. So you are going to insult my country now?
And debate is over since I said that every information from Wiki is valid in this thread.
Brother Coa wrote:
I just represent them as equal representation of information, but you are to blind to see that so we will move along...
And I never said: "'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII'" nor does it say anywhere on Wiki. I don't know where did you imagine this. And in universities here Wiki is praised as the most reliable source for information, people use the sources from it here to do their final exams for university and for doctor's diploma's. So you are going to insult my country now?
For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.
And debate is over since I said that every information from Wiki is valid in this thread.
Kilkrazy wrote:
There was no military need to invade Japan. The allies could simply have ignored the Japanese mainland and let people starve to death, because they had already sunk practically all of the Japanese navy and merchant fleet.
That is what is called a strategy -- what this thread is supposedly about.
We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.
This is where you spoke about the Japanese developing a nuclear weapon.
Seriously? Wikipedia is a valid and credible source for universities where you're from? I don't even know what to say to that...
My time in university would have been infinitely easier if I could have just cited a few pages of wikipedia and skipped over the dozens of hours of research for every paper I had to write...
You clearly won't see the light that many others here see as well, so I'll leave you be in your thread where any random fact is perfectly acceptable and valid with no backing at all. Have fun.
Brother Coa wrote: And in universities here Wiki is praised as the most reliable source for information, people use the sources from it here to do their final exams for university and for doctor's diploma's. So you are going to insult my country now?
I was typing a long text trying to explain why wikipedia shouldn't be considered a reliable source but then I read this and realized we are all being trolled.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.
I am not joking about that, people here use information from Wikipedia to graduate on university ( it is far easier to read several pages on Wikipedia then 1000 in one book ).
I myself go trough middle school and university projects using only info from Wiki, and I got good grades to. And it's not Serbia, but whole peninsula is using Wiki for university work.
To us, only North Americans and West and North Europeans are not trustworthy toward Wiki. It's like not trusting your own encyclopedias and books...
Emperors Faithful wrote:
For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.
I am not joking about that, people here use information from Wikipedia to graduate on university ( it is far easier to read several pages on Wikipedia then 1000 in one book ).
I myself go trough middle school and university projects using only info from Wiki, and I got good grades to. And it's not Serbia, but whole peninsula is using Wiki for university work.
To us, only North Americans and West and North Europeans are not trustworthy toward Wiki. It's like not trusting your own encyclopedias and books...
Encyclopedias and books are reviewed countless times by scholars and editors beforehand wikipedia is not
This is where you spoke about the Japanese developing a nuclear weapon.
I didn't say: "They HAD atom bomb" I say " They were RESEARCHING it". Read more carefully...
Seriously? Wikipedia is a valid and credible source for universities where you're from? I don't even know what to say to that...
My time in university would have been infinitely easier if I could have just cited a few pages of wikipedia and skipped over the dozens of hours of research for every paper I had to write...
You clearly won't see the light that many others here see as well, so I'll leave you be in your thread where any random fact is perfectly acceptable and valid with no backing at all. Have fun.
Light? You sound like arrogant American... You have difference of opinion toward me, that's ok. But in this thread there is no valid fact on Wiki and has no backing since Warhammer is not even real. We only compare military strategies of Imperial Guard and giving example to improve some things. Again, you are not reading the thread and it's OP question ( we have gone a little from OP, but blaim air power and KillKrazy for that... ). And most comon rule, if you don't like what is written here... don't read...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nicholas wrote:
Brother Coa wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.
I am not joking about that, people here use information from Wikipedia to graduate on university ( it is far easier to read several pages on Wikipedia then 1000 in one book ).
I myself go trough middle school and university projects using only info from Wiki, and I got good grades to. And it's not Serbia, but whole peninsula is using Wiki for university work.
To us, only North Americans and West and North Europeans are not trustworthy toward Wiki. It's like not trusting your own encyclopedias and books...
Encyclopedias and books are reviewed countless times by scholars and editors beforehand wikipedia is not
They have whole teams of people checking the statement's. You think someone would take the info from it without checking the original source?
Point taken... Nevertheless Wiki is quite reliable site, at least for me...
Depends on your definition of reliable. In terms of stating basic, well-known facts? Sure.
But supporting an argument? No.
EDIT: However, I can never be fethed to really dig into sources unless I'm using it for university. The standards for arguments on the internet are much lower than a University assignment, so I'll probably take it on face value. Really, if you've provided Wiki as a source then Blacksails should provide an Academic Source which contradicts it, rather than just say Wiki doesn't count.
Blacksails wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Two words, Brother Coa.
Peer Reviewed.
Wikipedia is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote:I think I just realized I've been trolled...I need a drink...
*pours Blacksails a Whisky*
Or were you after something stronger?
I've got some 94% Quebec Alcool ready to go, you're more than welcome to partake as well.
I think that the way the Imperial Guard fights is often determined by the avaiable equipment. Let us take the Leman Russ for example. It is slow. Realy slow. In fact it will most likely never be able to work as part of a highly mobile tank formation which will make encircling and destroying the enemy much more difficult which might in turn demand a completely different strategic approach to warfare from the Imperial Guard's generals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Coa wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:1) Point Guardsmen at enemy
2) Give Guardsmen Quebec Alcohol
3) ???
4) Profit!!!
3) Give him ugly alien to shoot
And a Commisar at his back, just in case the ugly aliens decides to shoot back.
Blacksails wrote:
What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...
Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.
The Bible, really?
Isn't it obvious? People believe in that what is written in a bible. And there is no prof that Jesus ever existed beside stories about him from his followers. Even so, people don't judge the sources of the text, if they are true or not. And they judge Wikipedia who has valid sources for all of it's claims.
And hard to call the world's biggest encyclopedia non academic stuff... And does Wikipedia give links and book pages where you can find the actual source? I call that valid source of information, no matter if it's not academic book ( imagine if Wikipedia is a book... ).
How many people disbelieve and question the bible including translations, missing sources, lack of proof, and missing books. A fair few to say the least. This doesn't help your point.
Wikipedia is worse than most encyclopedias and honestly listing an encyclopedia as a source at a post secondary level is frowned upon if not outright disallowed. Also the threshold for Wikipedia is verifiability not truth or proof. Even many of the sources on Wikipedia are often suspect which is why I asked for a real cited peer reviewed source. Anything less and you're not worth my time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:
If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.
Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.
Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?
The Viet Cong, hid in tunnels that were resistant to regular munitions so bunker busters would clearly help with caving those in. Also, once the US was allowed to fight properly and forced a pitched battle the won every fight. The RoE was also poor because it was supposed to be a hearts and minds campaign.
As for Nukes, the Imperium can hardly go around nuking everything. They do in some cases, Krieg being one of them, but it quickly becomes apparent that such methods make the planet unlivable.
Yes they can, if they lose a planet they can rebuild in space quicker than repairing war damage on a planet.
Of course it's effective, air superiority is a huge factor in modern warfare. But you can't win wars on airpower alone.
You can when that air power can scour a world clean.
I fail to see how a space station is ever going to produce more than a Forge World.
I agree that Naval superiority is a huge factor in the Imperium, but a planet yields so much more in the way of resources, as well as population than a couple of asteroids ever could.
Forge worlds already build ships in space and you lose nothing by building a factory to crank out tanks in an asteroid instead of in a tunnel on a forge world.
I've also already shown that one object smaller than our moon can create enough habitats to house 21.7 billion people and provide food for them.
The main arguement against your theory Canadian 5th is that GW the creators of this world that we are debating decided to have mankind living on many planets. The other problem is that those space rocks in order for them to remain in the current orbits require those larger bodies such as stars and planets to hold them. If all mankind were living in those space rocks then all the enemy would have to do is destroy whatever heavenly body was responsible for the gravitational pull on the space rock and thus send those spinning off. This would then divide up humanity making them easier to pick off one by one. having humnity on planets gives the imperium more to fight for/over as well as giving the room for the large battles that the tabletop game is to represent.
Also take note that I do not say that your idea is a bad one nor unplausible just simply not a very good fit for the 40K universe.
Attacking people's countries is uncalled for.- Mannahninin
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:The main arguement against your theory Canadian 5th is that GW the creators of this world that we are debating decided to have mankind living on many planets. The other problem is that those space rocks in order for them to remain in the current orbits require those larger bodies such as stars and planets to hold them. If all mankind were living in those space rocks then all the enemy would have to do is destroy whatever heavenly body was responsible for the gravitational pull on the space rock and thus send those spinning off. This would then divide up humanity making them easier to pick off one by one. having humnity on planets gives the imperium more to fight for/over as well as giving the room for the large battles that the tabletop game is to represent.
Also take note that I do not say that your idea is a bad one nor unplausible just simply not a very good fit for the 40K universe.
If the enemy is able to mass scatter a world then you lose anyway.
As for the rest, the setting is stupid in many ways. Very few people argue that.
Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.
The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.
Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.
This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.
The same thing done for Canada looks like this:
Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD
There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.
Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.
We also rank 3rd in education standards, Serbia isn't ranked, the US is ranked 14th, and Germany is 16th. So when people from countries with world class institutions tell you wiki isn't valid, you should listen. Your country could use the help. I notice a lack of Serbian schools in the top hundred universities list as well...
Multidimensional Poverty Index also ranks Serbia below such stellar nations as Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Canada the US and Germany aren't ranked.
Canadian 5th wrote:Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.
The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.
Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.
This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.
The same thing done for Canada looks like this:
Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD
There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.
Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.
Honestly we just managed to get the thread back on topic like 5 seconds ago. let's not bring any of it back up like the wiki or the bible thing and get back to IG
You're missing the point, you just come across as being rude and condescending.
Anyways, this topic has changed no less than three times so far.
How about we all take a shot of whiskey, shake hands, and sing 'Why Can't We Be Friends?'.
As for the original topic, I for one maintain the Guard can use any strategy it so deems necessary to achieve a desired result, as exemplified by the variety of regiments that specialize in different aspects of war.
Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.
Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.
Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument
Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.
Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument
It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?
purplefood wrote:
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Coa wrote:Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.
While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.
And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.
But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
Canadian 5th wrote:
Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.
Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.
Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.
Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.
And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.
No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.
Actually the truth is history has proven that air power CAN break a country or nation. In today's nuclear age pick a country, drop nuke...it and all of it's people, industry, history, etc. are gone overnight. That said what people forget, is in places like the Vietnam war, the pilots were handicapped not just by the terrain, but more importantly the politics of the war. Vietname would have been over in a week and some change without setting one U.S. soldier's foot on the ground if someone had the spinal column to turn North Vietnam into a crater field. The other thing is in modern war unlike years past the United States military has had to be overtly conserned with hitting 'civilian' targets in a warzone where the 'targets' are the civilians or can blend into the civilian pop. So in today's time, we can't hit the schools where the terrorists are, we can't bomb the religious centers, where the terrorists are, or the streets, or the open markets, etc.etc. The airpower has to go over and make doubly damn sure they can 'hit' the enemy without hitting Little Timmy and having a PR nightmare. Or at least limit the PR nightmares. You unchain an airpower force it can do anything, your just going to have alot of blood on your hands, which is something I don't think ANY 40k army has a problem with.
The other thing I'm putting my 2 cents on is the equipment issue. While yes 40k is supposed to be advanced thanks to this wonderful thing called the Dark Age of Technology the actual tech base is closer then you think. In fact fluff-wise a lasgun might be better then the M-16, but compare the actual game rules wise and real world, the M-16 would out range over several times the max range of the lasgun. IIRC someone told an M-16 (or an M4 again not 100% sure) in 40k would be close to 72" max range & 48" effective. Also the lasgun's only advantage is number of shots it can produce and actual hitting power. So game terms average U.S. soldier with M-16 is going to have a S2 AP 5-6 72" weapon compared to S3 no ap and max 24". I could go on comparing tanks, and aircraft as well. It's only until you add in space travel, super heavy tank, force fields, and plasma and melta weapons you start to tip the scales.
purplefood wrote:
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Coa wrote:Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.
While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.
And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.
But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.
Canadian 5th wrote:
Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.
Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.
Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.
Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.
And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.
No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.
Actually the truth is history has proven that air power CAN break a country or nation. In today's nuclear age pick a country, drop nuke...it and all of it's people, industry, history, etc. are gone overnight. That said what people forget, is in places like the Vietnam war, the pilots were handicapped not just by the terrain, but more importantly the politics of the war. Vietname would have been over in a week and some change without setting one U.S. soldier's foot on the ground if someone had the spinal column to turn North Vietnam into a crater field. The other thing is in modern war unlike years past the United States military has had to be overtly conserned with hitting 'civilian' targets in a warzone where the 'targets' are the civilians or can blend into the civilian pop. So in today's time, we can't hit the schools where the terrorists are, we can't bomb the religious centers, where the terrorists are, or the streets, or the open markets, etc.etc. The airpower has to go over and make doubly damn sure they can 'hit' the enemy without hitting Little Timmy and having a PR nightmare. Or at least limit the PR nightmares. You unchain an airpower force it can do anything, your just going to have alot of blood on your hands, which is something I don't think ANY 40k army has a problem with.
The other thing I'm putting my 2 cents on is the equipment issue. While yes 40k is supposed to be advanced thanks to this wonderful thing called the Dark Age of Technology the actual tech base is closer then you think. In fact fluff-wise a lasgun might be better then the M-16, but compare the actual game rules wise and real world, the M-16 would out range over several times the max range of the lasgun. IIRC someone told an M-16 (or an M4 again not 100% sure) in 40k would be close to 72" max range & 48" effective. Also the lasgun's only advantage is number of shots it can produce and actual hitting power. So game terms average U.S. soldier with M-16 is going to have a S2 AP 5-6 72" weapon compared to S3 no ap and max 24". I could go on comparing tanks, and aircraft as well. It's only until you add in space travel, super heavy tank, force fields, and plasma and melta weapons you start to tip the scales.
The fact that lasguns have only 24" range in game is simply for game balance. Standard infantry weapon ranges have been reduced in the game for every side. If you read the books and fluff, a lasgun is much superior to its in game equivalent, and is also superior to a stub gun (equivelent to a lasgun in the game), the equivalent of modern guns.
Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.
Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument
It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?
So now we are applying our world technology to the 40K universe? The fact of the matter is that the entire point of wether the imperium decides to give up all of it's worlds in order to move everyting into space only operations is just not going to happen. When the imperium has absolutly no problem in solving problems by simply throwing more and more men at it until it goes away does not suggest that the expense (whatever expense there happens to be if at all) would matter to them at all. So there for your point is pointless in the actual topic at hand here which is the Imperial GUARD's strategies.
The fact that lasguns have only 24" range in game is simply for game balance. Standard infantry weapon ranges have been reduced in the game for every side. If you read the books and fluff, a lasgun is much superior to its in game equivalent, and is also superior to a stub gun, the equivalent of modern guns.
Yup, hamfisted balance for a poorly designed game.
Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.
Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument
It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?
So now we are applying our world technology to the 40K universe? The fact of the matter is that the entire point of wether the imperium decides to give up all of it's worlds in order to move everyting into space only operations is just not going to happen. When the imperium has absolutly no problem in solving problems by simply throwing more and more men at it until it goes away does not suggest that the expense (whatever expense there happens to be if at all) would matter to them at all. So there for your point is pointless in the actual topic at hand here which is the Imperial GUARD's strategies.
Yes, the guards strategies which are shaped by the IoM's overall flaws and poor decision making. They could have gone to space habitats and thus had less issues than they have, they didn't. They could break the admech monopoly on production, but they don't. They could try some real diplomacy with several of the other races, but they won't. In short the IoM is run by petty morons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?
Note the name, note the FoW and historical section...
Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?
So he can argue and act superior?
Also, if you think the game sucks so much, why play it? There are plenty of other games out there for you to play if you hate WH40k. ( I know you play FoW, but why go on the WH part of the forum if you hate it so much?)
Commisar Wolfie wrote:In short the IOM is exactly how the designers wanted it to be in order to have a tabletop WAR game not a tabletop diplomacy game.
Oh, so they wanted a fairly stupid game with unbalanced rules and poorly planned fluff?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Seric wrote:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?
So he can argue and act superior?
Also, if you think the game sucks so much, why play it? There are plenty of other games out there for you to play if you hate WH40k. ( I know you play FoW, but why go on the WH part of the forum if you hate it so much?)
Yes, while also producing evidence for my claims and backing them up with facts. Also, I used to play 40k, waste of money that was, I now only use the models I have and the books that I can get for free. Inow have much more fun proxying and playing whatever I want to try.
I'm pretty sure you just proved Seric's point. Well done. And seeing how no game is perfect 40K is fine. Plenty of people still enjoy it since they are still putting out updates and sites like this are still around so I guess GW is doiing something right. Or do you want me to search google scholar to find you some facts that I may or maynot have twisted/made-up to try and prove my point. Also all of your "facts" have been provided by nothing more then you saying it and not with any evidence of where or how you came to these "facts"
Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.
Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument
It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?
Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:In short the IOM is exactly how the designers wanted it to be in order to have a tabletop WAR game not a tabletop diplomacy game.
Oh, so they wanted a fairly stupid game with unbalanced rules and poorly planned fluff?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Seric wrote:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?
So he can argue and act superior?
Also, if you think the game sucks so much, why play it? There are plenty of other games out there for you to play if you hate WH40k. ( I know you play FoW, but why go on the WH part of the forum if you hate it so much?)
Yes, while also producing evidence for my claims and backing them up with facts. Also, I used to play 40k, waste of money that was, I now only use the models I have and the books that I can get for free. Inow have much more fun proxying and playing whatever I want to try.
Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:I'm pretty sure you just proved Seric's point. Well done. And seeing how no game is perfect 40K is fine. Plenty of people still enjoy it since they are still putting out updates and sites like this are still around so I guess GW is doiing something right. Or do you want me to search google scholar to find you some facts that I may or maynot have twisted/made-up to try and prove my point. Also all of your "facts" have been provided by nothing more then you saying it and not with any evidence of where or how you came to these "facts"
I've cited my sources actually and if you dispute any specific point on the grounds that it isn't factually accurate then call me on it and I'll find the citations. Also, GW has ran in the red more than a few times the past few years, hence the cutting stores and raising prices. They have a player base, but it's kids with spending cash and people with too much free time and money and both are shrinking classes of people.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:I'm pretty sure you just proved Seric's point. Well done. And seeing how no game is perfect 40K is fine. Plenty of people still enjoy it since they are still putting out updates and sites like this are still around so I guess GW is doiing something right. Or do you want me to search google scholar to find you some facts that I may or maynot have twisted/made-up to try and prove my point. Also all of your "facts" have been provided by nothing more then you saying it and not with any evidence of where or how you came to these "facts"
I've cited my sources actually and if you dispute any specific point on the grounds that it isn't factually accurate then call me on it and I'll find the citations. Also, GW has ran in the red more than a few times the past few years, hence the cutting stores and raising prices. They have a player base, but it's kids with spending cash and people with too much free time and money and both are shrinking classes of people.
Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money
REally. too much free time and money? I play and have been playing. I started while serving in the navy on board a submarine. Guess how much free time I had? Not much, I had about every other saturday free in which to play, build, paint. Too much money? I think not Im still playing while now only having scholarship money from my GI Bill so I don't buy very much new stuff and actually most of my new stuff is from trades. And your citations I really haven't seen any. Do I feel like dredging through all your hate to search for the few kernals of what may be true. No I don't unfortuantly for you im not really into causing myself pain. If you really have so much hate for the game why don't you just leave since you really are not contributing anything useful to any conversation.
Nicholas wrote:Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.
No it isn't. Take fossil fuels for instance and the damage they're doing on Earth, if you had a space based infrastructure you could mine all the energy you could want from Titan with no risk of harm to people or food stocks if a spill were to happen. Setting it up would have a high starting cost given that we can't even build ships in space yet, but if we could then you could build tankers that would make the Emma Maersk look like a toy and that could nearly for free due to burning the now plentiful Methane and then drifting the rest of the way. No crew is even needed as we've shown that robots can pilot advanced courses, setting up an unmanned mining post is harder, but by the time we are able to exploit those resources that won't be an issue.
If you did some basic math for my earlier population density numbers you would see that I pegged them at 2,000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. Beijing has a population density of roughly 1,000 people per 0.14 cubic meters if you take the population density per square kilometer and then take the average building height in the city.
Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.
Why not, beating up people who can't even cite real sources is too easy to pass up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nicholas wrote:Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money
Not all of them, most take time, not all need to take money.
ah so you admit to the only reason for you posting in what is supposed to be a fun forum is so that you can be nothing more then an arrogant jerk. you got beat up a lot as child didn't you, you brave little internet bully.
Automatically Appended Next Post: all hobbies are for free time, it is called free time because you can do what you want during it. and what hobby does not take time?
Commisar Wolfie wrote:REally. too much free time and money? I play and have been playing. I started while serving in the navy on board a submarine. Guess how much free time I had? Not much, I had about every other saturday free in which to play, build, paint. Too much money? I think not Im still playing while now only having scholarship money from my GI Bill so I don't buy very much new stuff and actually most of my new stuff is from trades. And your citations I really haven't seen any. Do I feel like dredging through all your hate to search for the few kernals of what may be true. No I don't unfortuantly for you im not really into causing myself pain. If you really have so much hate for the game why don't you just leave since you really are not contributing anything useful to any conversation.
Oh wow, a really navy vet! Of course you played a time consuming game, what else were you going to do on the ship? I know they're better these days, but activity choices tend to be limited shipside, submarines are even worse.
You must not look at my posts very hard. You claim that my posts are made up and that I twist facts. Back it up by showing where I've done so or back off.
Nicholas wrote:Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.
No it isn't. Take fossil fuels for instance and the damage they're doing on Earth, if you had a space based infrastructure you could mine all the energy you could want from Titan with no risk of harm to people or food stocks if a spill were to happen. Setting it up would have a high starting cost given that we can't even build ships in space yet, but if we could then you could build tankers that would make the Emma Maersk look like a toy and that could nearly for free due to burning the now plentiful Methane and then drifting the rest of the way. No crew is even needed as we've shown that robots can pilot advanced courses, setting up an unmanned mining post is harder, but by the time we are able to exploit those resources that won't be an issue.
If you did some basic math for my earlier population density numbers you would see that I pegged them at 2,000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. Beijing has a population density of roughly 1,000 people per 0.14 cubic meters if you take the population density per square kilometer and then take the average building height in the city.
Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.
Why not, beating up people who can't even cite real sources is too easy to pass up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nicholas wrote:Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money
Not all of them, most take time, not all need to take money.
It's funny you say that, I have not scene you site any sources for your space argument, and you have made some claims about real world things in it with no proof.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:ah so you admit to the only reason for you posting in what is supposed to be a fun forum is so that you can be nothing more then an arrogant jerk. you got beat up a lot as child didn't you, you brave little internet bully.
Bully, hardly, a person who enjoys debate and expects people to post sources. Certainly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Seric wrote:It's funny you say that, I have not scene you site any sources for your space argument, and you have made some claims about real world things in it with no proof.
Pick a specific claim and I'll drown you in sources.
Actually you might want to re-read my post. At no point did i say i played on ship, because i never did. 1)subs are to small to be able to play a game 2)not nearly enough free time to play a game 3)plenty of work to be done to allow a game like 40K to played while onboard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ya, so far all of your debate tactics are more appropriate to a bully. you take yourself way to serious. this particular forum is meant to be more on the fun side. you however turn every topic into a debate and anyone who dares to disagree with you opinion you turn around and try to blast them and your pretty quick to turn to insults.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Actually you might want to re-read my post. At no point did i say i played on ship, because i never did. 1)subs are to small to be able to play a game 2)not nearly enough free time to play a game 3)plenty of work to be done to allow a game like 40K to played while onboard.
I know the boys on the ground play in theater, and I bet the guys on nicer posts like carriers can play on ship. You kinda got the shaft.
Ya, so far all of your debate tactics are more appropriate to a bully. you take yourself way to serious. this particular forum is meant to be more on the fun side. you however turn every topic into a debate and anyone who dares to disagree with you opinion you turn around and try to blast them and your pretty quick to turn to insults.
Calling for sources is being a bully? Sourcing my own posts and doing research isn't fun now? Oh, and it's hard not to insult people who can't capitalize words like we were taught in grade school when text is the communications medium. It's like mumbling, people consider it rude.
Nicholas wrote:Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.
No it isn't. Take fossil fuels for instance and the damage they're doing on Earth, if you had a space based infrastructure you could mine all the energy you could want from Titan with no risk of harm to people or food stocks if a spill were to happen. Setting it up would have a high starting cost given that we can't even build ships in space yet, but if we could then you could build tankers that would make the Emma Maersk look like a toy and that could nearly for free due to burning the now plentiful Methane and then drifting the rest of the way. No crew is even needed as we've shown that robots can pilot advanced courses, setting up an unmanned mining post is harder, but by the time we are able to exploit those resources that won't be an issue.
If you did some basic math for my earlier population density numbers you would see that I pegged them at 2,000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. Beijing has a population density of roughly 1,000 people per 0.14 cubic meters if you take the population density per square kilometer and then take the average building height in the city.
Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.
Why not, beating up people who can't even cite real sources is too easy to pass up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nicholas wrote:Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money
Not all of them, most take time, not all need to take money.
Remember my entire idea was to use both moon and planet. There are definitely more resource on the entire planet compared to a moon, which are usually a small piece broken off the planet, and the moon or station is probably more defendable. Why even take the expensive start up cost if you can get the resources you want much easier on the planet your already on. Also remember that most world in the IOM are specialized like forgeworlds or agriworlds so the ones that grow the food burn almost no fossil fuels if they even use them. The world that do burn them, forge worlds and hive worlds mostly, either don't care because the work force is mostly servitors or have forms of environmental control.
Actually I voluntered for that duty. As to playing on ship it might work but i kinda doubt you could really find enough space to play anything much more then kill teams. I don't know for sure though since i never was stationed to a carrier.
So not using capital letters are rude? how is being a condescinding, arrogant, prick not being rude. You say you do all this research but yet most of your stuff does not cite anything at all. Plus your so called researched material comes pretty quick back to back to be properly researched.
Nicholas wrote:Remember my entire idea was to use both moon and planet. There are definitely more resource on the entire planet compared to a moon, which are usually a small piece broken off the planet, and the moon or station is probably more defendable. Why even take the expensive start up cost if you can get the resources you want much easier on the planet your already on. Also remember that most world in the IOM are specialized like forgeworlds or agriworlds so the ones that grow the food burn almost no fossil fuels if they even use them. The world that do burn them, forge worlds and hive worlds mostly, either don't care because the work force is mostly servitors or have forms of environmental control.
So, why use the planet at all when it really has very few advantages over a space habitat? Sorry, most moons are trapped debris from the formation of the solar system. Unless you think sending an asteroid into Saturn will net you rocks now?
As for cost, to leave your home planet you need a good space infrastructure anyway, once you have that why bother landing again? I question the need for an agriworld when high density hydroponics and waste recycling should cover them easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:So not using capital letters are rude? how is being a condescinding, arrogant, prick not being rude. You say you do all this research but yet most of your stuff does not cite anything at all. Plus your so called researched material comes pretty quick back to back to be properly researched.
Yes, typing like a slob is rude. We learned these skills in grade school so please use them. Also, when did I say I wasn't rude?
If you doubt me then ask me to cite a claim I've made. If not, sit down and be silent.
Why should I sit down and be silent. why don't you do your research and prove to me why I should. I tell you what I'll give 24 hours to come up with a good arguement and plenty of your "sources" to prove it too. And I doubt all of your so called facts. So far the only facts that you have bothered to say where you got your information from was so you could insult someone else. Otherwise nothing else has been cited. There is your challange, meet it or sit down and shut up.
Nicholas wrote:Remember my entire idea was to use both moon and planet. There are definitely more resource on the entire planet compared to a moon, which are usually a small piece broken off the planet, and the moon or station is probably more defendable. Why even take the expensive start up cost if you can get the resources you want much easier on the planet your already on. Also remember that most world in the IOM are specialized like forgeworlds or agriworlds so the ones that grow the food burn almost no fossil fuels if they even use them. The world that do burn them, forge worlds and hive worlds mostly, either don't care because the work force is mostly servitors or have forms of environmental control.
So, why use the planet at all when it really has very few advantages over a space habitat? Sorry, most moons are trapped debris from the formation of the solar system. Unless you think sending an asteroid into Saturn will net you rocks now?
As for cost, to leave your home planet you need a good space infrastructure anyway, once you have that why bother landing again? I question the need for an agriworld when high density hydroponics and waste recycling should cover them easy.
Your saying that hydroponics on a small moon would be able to out produce an entire planet that produces crops for itself and most planets near it. The planet has tons more resource than that small moon and recycling only goes so far. This argument could really be situational too as every planet and moon is formed differently with different resources, but I guarantee the majority of planets have more resource that are easier to acess than any of their moons
Commisar Wolfie wrote:ah so you admit to the only reason for you posting in what is supposed to be a fun forum is so that you can be nothing more then an arrogant jerk. you got beat up a lot as child didn't you, you brave little internet bully.
Bully, hardly, a person who enjoys debate and expects people to post sources. Certainly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Seric wrote:It's funny you say that, I have not scene you site any sources for your space argument, and you have made some claims about real world things in it with no proof.
Pick a specific claim and I'll drown you in sources.
Ok, who's to say that living on moons would mean there are more resources than on the planet? Also is it possible to have extensive enough hydroponics on a asteroid to replace a world meant for farming? I would like to see specific sources proving these, as so far your entire argument for this has been these main points with a few known facts thrown in as secondary.
Also your whole space argument is off topic, as this is a thread about the IG's strategy and tactics, not a discussion on how the role of the IG would change if everything was based in space.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Why should I sit down and be silent. why don't you do your research and prove to me why I should. I tell you what I'll give 24 hours to come up with a good arguement and plenty of your "sources" to prove it too. And I doubt all of your so called facts. So far the only facts that you have bothered to say where you got your information from was so you could insult someone else. Otherwise nothing else has been cited. There is your challange, meet it or sit down and shut up.
Oh, the sailor who can't type is calling me out because he doesn't have the balls to pick a real claim I've made to challenge. Piss off.
And I did make a real claim or is all your "facts" to much for you to quickly find "sources" that agree with what you said to hard. And I'm not the only one to call you out. And since you said I didn't pick a real claim, I take it then that none of your claims are real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Seric wrote:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Im sorry the challange to hard for you to prove?
He didn't answer me at all...
Thats because he failed to rise up to mine so he couldn't even come close to meeting your challange.
Nicholas wrote:Your saying that hydroponics on a small moon would be able to out produce an entire planet that produces crops for itself and most planets near it. The planet has tons more resource than that small moon and recycling only goes so far. This argument could really be situational too as every planet and moon is formed differently with different resources, but I guarantee the majority of planets have more resource that are easier to acess than any of their moons
I've shown that Ceres, an object smaller than our moon can hold 21 billion people and enough space for food production. You see three habitats holding 870,000ish people and one smaller habitat around half as large as any single one of those can be made with the material that modern Earth mines in a year. When you replace digging for ore with blast apart a rock in space and sucking in the bits for smelting you can do this much faster. However we're not talking about mining, we're talking about feeding people. For that we need to look at hydroponics.
"Trials conducted by Cornell University's Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Commercial-Scale Lettuce Production Prototype has achieved soil-free lettuce yields equivalent to 470 tons (almost a million pounds) per acre. By comparison, typical production in California using traditional field agriculture is currently about 20 tons per acre."
So at minimum we can get 470 tons of produce of this type per acre. Just the surface of the inside of a cylinder 1km in diameter by 5 km in length is 3881 acres. So just that is 1,824,070 tons of food for just over 2.6 million people. Now consider that even giving three meters between layers you could have many concentric layers and that number rises by many many times as you can pack in 125 layers of 4m each with each getting smaller, so say you get 75x what that single layer can has for 291,075 acres, then say that you get roughly 100 tons per acre instead of 470 tons, you still get 29,107,500 tons of food, or 11 tons of food per person. Thus space isn't an issue.
Could water be the issue then? Nope, not when hydrogen is common and so is oxygen. That also solves air as water = air and air = water. Heck comets even come to you and most asteroids and even our own barren moon have water on them in large amounts.
So if space, food, and materials aren't an issue what might be? Power, nope solar energy works better in space and given that a 17km ship can produce petaton scale shots energy density can't be the issue. There try to follow that act.
Finally you actually showed some citation, congratulations. Now that only shows for lettuce what about other foods such as potato or carrots or corn. What do propose for protein. Also recycling air is not perfect and people contaminate it. I know for a fact that on a submarine even having an O2 recycle system could not stay under for an indefinte amount of time (that is not even taking other supplies into account), we are talking a small amount of people and let's say roughly a month was the most before the air started to have to little actual O2 in it for the purposes of working in that environment.
Also on such a "moon" the materials for production uses are finite, less then what would be found on an earth or planet. So why should the IOM give up those resources?
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Finally you actually showed some citation, congratulations. Now that only shows for lettuce what about other foods such as potato or carrots or corn. What do propose for protein. Also recycling air is not perfect and people contaminate it. I know for a fact that on a submarine even having an O2 recycle system could not stay under for an indefinte amount of time (that is not even taking other supplies into account), we are talking a small amount of people and let's say roughly a month was the most before the air started to have to little actual O2 in it for the purposes of working in that environment.
You'll note where I scaled down the production per acre by 4.7 times. That's assuming that other things grow much worse than lettuce, when potatoes have been able to feed more people per acre through out history.
Oh protein is even easier given that you can get it from things like soy beans. We can also make meat that is fine to eat, by recycling human waste, Japan has just done it. Air is also recycled by plants and while you will lose some, you can just bring in more from the nearest ice bearing lump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Im sorry the challange to hard for you to prove?
No just pointless as you have no actual counter argument for me.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Your above response does not provide evidence for anything more then that they could provide x amount of lettuce. Keep trying.
It was an easy source to find, also potatoes and tomatoes are already grown at high density in hot houses. You'll also notice that I divide that 470 tons by 4.7 times to account for things that won't grow that densely.
Here's a source for hydroponic wheat. A bit of a read though.
Well if you aren't going to source anything then you have no right to cry when people don't source anything nor can you demand sources from people when you yourself are refusing to provide that very thing. So far your entire arguement is holding everyone else to a different standard then what you yourself hold to. Why should I limit myself to just one fact when I asked for each one? Also again I am not the only person to have called you out on these things either. And yes i grant you that you did make a few alterations to your math to try and account for some things however your basing your math on a vegetable that was grown which does not have very much nutritional value to it. Which is why I asked about other plants as well. In order to maintain health you need a varity of different vegetables and fruits. That question was to further the discussion.
Sorry, I sourced the Japan issue, the Serbian education standards side issue, the hydroponics and habitats issue. Japan surrendering to the atom bombs is common knowledge. As is the 6 days wars, Iraq, and the Falklands.
I explained clearly why trench warfare is stupid and cited my source for it being able to stall the guards advance. So please, what didn't I source again?
You only cited one peice for the Japanese nuclear program, you cited you personal attack on another member, you did cite your hydroponics which I did agree you did, you did not really cite your habitats issue. Also with trench warfare it was stated by several people that you ignored (apparently because they disagreed with you) that trench warfare was not the only type of warfare the IG were capable of. Which you also did not cite at all but simply gave your opinion of. So you did cite a couple of things but barely your entire arguements.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:You only cited one peice for the Japanese nuclear program, you cited you personal attack on another member, you did cite your hydroponics which I did agree you did, you did not really cite your habitats issue. Also with trench warfare it was stated by several people that you ignored (apparently because they disagreed with you) that trench warfare was not the only type of warfare the IG were capable of. Which you also did not cite at all but simply gave your opinion of. So you did cite a couple of things but barely your entire arguements.
I didn't need to cite that they didn't have a program, can't prove a negative. Others would need to show that they had one worth worrying over.
Ceres masses 9.43 ± 0.07×1020 kg, a habitat little enough that you can build roughly 2523 habitats with a food base for every three habitats if as little as 0.1% of Ceres is usable to build with.
I showed why trench warfare was bad, and then skipped the rest of the way the guard fight because I made the assertion that they are stupid for fighting over planets at all.
and why is fighting over planets bad when they do hold resources, which if the IOM did not take then their enemies would. Also as I stated planets would hold more resources then any moon or other such heavenly body and seeing how the imperium can not make something from nothing they need those resources. Which then means they have to fight over planes, which then also means that in some circumstances they may have to resort to trench warfare.
Your assumption that all your "common knowledge" facts are actually common knowledge are misplaced considering that this forum site has members of various ages which means it is very possible for some people to not know everything that you are calling common knowledge. Which then means if you want your facts to actually be facts then you need to back them up with the evidence that you keep crying that nobody else is using.
Indeed. What is needed is for the BL authors to include a few more instances of different types of warfare then the standard trench and it's equalivents. Maybe some stories that have the Elysians or more tallaran and such. Just something more showing them employing more strats.
I like Canadian 5ths concept of orbital industry, makes sense vs a solid target like a forgeworld. Could help the hell out of ongoing campaigns by "moving" the forge to the front lines.
Could also go bad too though, a single fleet battle lost could cripple industry and cost thousands of conflicts.
I'm tired, so if that was someone else's idea kudos!
Canadian 5th wrote:Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.
The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.
Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.
This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.
The same thing done for Canada looks like this:
Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD
There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.
Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.
Multidimensional Poverty Index also ranks Serbia below such stellar nations as Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Canada the US and Germany aren't ranked.
Ok now this is insulting. And I don't get were did you find that data, it's years old. We have improved now, we are still at the near bottom for a way of life and all that - but it\n not that bad. People can take credits again, go without visa into EU, we are scheduled to enter EU in 2014-2015. Now, our politicians are bunch of greedy people ( they are spending so much that they put 60% tax on fuel ) and we have slight problem with nationalism ( more then any other country ). But it's not that bad.
On the other hand, it's common knowledge about Canada here that your country is 80% non-populated because of harsh environment. And you are speaking about our and your economy? Country that is 5x bigger then ours with gakload of resources with Serbia who is small, have few resources and get trough 3 wars during the 90-is?
Maybe we suck in some things, but we are great in others: tourism, great country to go out in the city and sport ( just see tennis ).
We also rank 3rd in education standards, Serbia isn't ranked, the US is ranked 14th, and Germany is 16th. So when people from countries with world class institutions tell you wiki isn't valid, you should listen. Your country could use the help. I notice a lack of Serbian schools in the top hundred universities list as well...
Our student's from School of Electrical engineering are one of the best in the world in that area, and wanted everywhere. And what's your point? That we never donated anything to world improvement? See Nikola Tesla... And of course our university's are not in top 100 when you ruin half of the during 1999 bombing. And on a side note, every man that lives here and goes into USA or Canada or EU to study said that "studding there is 10x easier than here, because they have 10x less theory to study" But I will drop now, there is no need to get this thread locked down, and plese - don't insult other countries no matter the size or the culture... it's just rude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote:
I've cited my sources actually and if you dispute any specific point on the grounds that it isn't factually accurate then call me on it and I'll find the citations. Also, GW has ran in the red more than a few times the past few years, hence the cutting stores and raising prices. They have a player base, but it's kids with spending cash and people with too much free time and money and both are shrinking classes of people.
The true and source-full definition of Canadian 5'th: DELETED BY MODERATOR.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote:
I've shown that Ceres, an object smaller than our moon can hold 21 billion people and enough space for food production. You see three habitats holding 870,000ish people and one smaller habitat around half as large as any single one of those can be made with the material that modern Earth mines in a year. When you replace digging for ore with blast apart a rock in space and sucking in the bits for smelting you can do this much faster. However we're not talking about mining, we're talking about feeding people. For that we need to look at hydroponics.
"Trials conducted by Cornell University's Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Commercial-Scale Lettuce Production Prototype has achieved soil-free lettuce yields equivalent to 470 tons (almost a million pounds) per acre. By comparison, typical production in California using traditional field agriculture is currently about 20 tons per acre."
So at minimum we can get 470 tons of produce of this type per acre. Just the surface of the inside of a cylinder 1km in diameter by 5 km in length is 3881 acres. So just that is 1,824,070 tons of food for just over 2.6 million people. Now consider that even giving three meters between layers you could have many concentric layers and that number rises by many many times as you can pack in 125 layers of 4m each with each getting smaller, so say you get 75x what that single layer can has for 291,075 acres, then say that you get roughly 100 tons per acre instead of 470 tons, you still get 29,107,500 tons of food, or 11 tons of food per person. Thus space isn't an issue.
Could water be the issue then? Nope, not when hydrogen is common and so is oxygen. That also solves air as water = air and air = water. Heck comets even come to you and most asteroids and even our own barren moon have water on them in large amounts.
So if space, food, and materials aren't an issue what might be? Power, nope solar energy works better in space and given that a 17km ship can produce petaton scale shots energy density can't be the issue. There try to follow that act.
21 billion people? What, you get out there and measure it? We can't even go beyond our moon and we are talking about some dwarf planet that is between Mars and Jupiter? Well let me tell you something, theory is one thing and practical thing is something uterlly different. Those numbers up there are good, but they don't mean anything because we can't even get there and what country will invest into something like that? So your argument is invalid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:Indeed. What is needed is for the BL authors to include a few more instances of different types of warfare then the standard trench and it's equalivents. Maybe some stories that have the Elysians or more tallaran and such. Just something more showing them employing more strats.
Maybe that was the point with them. Made several different Imperial Guard who will take use of certain strategy. ( Like Blood Angels and Templars using CC and Space Wolves using powerful range attacks ).
Emperors Faithful wrote:Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?
The Viet Cong, hid in tunnels that were resistant to regular munitions so bunker busters would clearly help with caving those in. Also, once the US was allowed to fight properly and forced a pitched battle the won every fight. The RoE was also poor because it was supposed to be a hearts and minds campaign.
The Viet Cong was in South Vietnam. And it was more of a matter of not knowing where the tunnels were, rather than not being able to damage them. And of course the US came off better in pitched battles, but even though they were the winner of almost every major engagement they lost the war by a mile.
The bombing campaign in North Vietnam and bordering countries was furious and unrestricted, and the US still lost. In fact, not only did the bombing fail to stop the flow of supplies and troops pouring into South Vietnam or destroy NV's infrastructure, it didn't even slow it (traffic reportedly increased as the war went on). I don't see how you can spin this case of glaring air superiority doing sod all into something that helps your argument.
I've also already shown that one object smaller than our moon can create enough habitats to house 21.7 billion people and provide food for them.
21.7 billion as opposed to, say, Trillions? Or hundreds of billions at the least. Why would the Imperium leave the natural resources of those planet, many completely capable of supporting life on their own, and go asteroid-hunting? It's not like asteroids are a treasure trove of resources (unless you've been playing SoaSE for too long).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote:
General Seric wrote:
Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?
So he can argue and act superior?
Also, if you think the game sucks so much, why play it? There are plenty of other games out there for you to play if you hate WH40k. ( I know you play FoW, but why go on the WH part of the forum if you hate it so much?)
Yes, while also producing evidence for my claims and backing them up with facts.
They see him trollin', they hatin'...
Also, I used to play 40k, waste of money that was, I now only use the models I have and the books that I can get for free. Inow have much more fun proxying and playing whatever I want to try.
As I said before the Imperium can easily use both to their advantage by hosting a military fortress on the moon while still using the planet. Someone would have to take out the heavily defended moon base first or be sitting ducks on the planet below.
iproxtaco wrote:^Correct. Guard tactics, which are often trench warfare, weight of firepower, outnumbering the foe are GOOD tactics to use against 40k enemies. Current tactics would be hopeless against a horde of Orkz.
Nah, I think the US army would do well against them. you don't need trenches to take care of orks, just napalm.
That doesn't work so great against Orks, because Orks aren't stupid and don't generally bunch up where airstrikes are effective.
Fast movers dropping napalm as well would be fairly vulnerable to Ork AA, which isn't entirely unheard of taking out things like Thunderbolts or Lightning Strikes.
Nice....that sound like something Elysians would use. Haraconians to...
But I can't imagine for Krieg using this tactic...but I can imagine them using engineers and building bunkers right behind their won troops...
Harakoni and Elysian 'Drop' are airborne specialists that deploy from aircraft.
These Drop Pods suggest that there's another form of 'Drop' troop that is utilized for orbital-to-ground insertions and securing beachheads. So no, not Elysians/Harakoni.
And why are you bringing up Krieg? Their tactics are not relevant here, they are their own breed effectively.
Canadian 5th wrote:Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.
The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.
Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.
This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.
The same thing done for Canada looks like this:
Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD
There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.
Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.
Multidimensional Poverty Index also ranks Serbia below such stellar nations as Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Canada the US and Germany aren't ranked.
Ok now this is insulting. And I don't get were did you find that data, it's years old. We have improved now, we are still at the near bottom for a way of life and all that - but it\n not that bad. People can take credits again, go without visa into EU, we are scheduled to enter EU in 2014-2015. Now, our politicians are bunch of greedy people ( they are spending so much that they put 60% tax on fuel ) and we have slight problem with nationalism ( more then any other country ). But it's not that bad.
On the other hand, it's common knowledge about Canada here that your country is 80% non-populated because of harsh environment. And you are speaking about our and your economy? Country that is 5x bigger then ours with gakload of resources with Serbia who is small, have few resources and get trough 3 wars during the 90-is?
Maybe we suck in some things, but we are great in others: tourism, great country to go out in the city and sport ( just see tennis ).
CI world factbook, most numbers are from 2009 to 2010. Also, your nation makes less from tourism than Canada does. We're ranked 3rd in North America with 15.74 million people visiting in 2009, what are the numbers for Serbia?
Our student's from School of Electrical engineering are one of the best in the world in that area, and wanted everywhere. And what's your point? That we never donated anything to world improvement? See Nikola Tesla... And of course our university's are not in top 100 when you ruin half of the during 1999 bombing. And on a side note, every man that lives here and goes into USA or Canada or EU to study said that "studding there is 10x easier than here, because they have 10x less theory to study" But I will drop now, there is no need to get this thread locked down, and plese - don't insult other countries no matter the size or the culture... it's just rude.
Ah, so you have trades and many of your students still need to study abroad because your nation can't even handle its own security.
21 billion people? What, you get out there and measure it? We can't even go beyond our moon and we are talking about some dwarf planet that is between Mars and Jupiter? Well let me tell you something, theory is one thing and practical thing is something uterlly different. Those numbers up there are good, but they don't mean anything because we can't even get there and what country will invest into something like that? So your argument is invalid.
Notice the numbers for the internal volume of a cylinder 2km in diameter by 10km in length and then plug in 2000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. That will give you around 870,000 people per tube. The mass of each tube is such that you could make 3 habitats and one space farm with the amount of steel and iron earth makes each year. That is assuming 2m thick walls as well, which isn't how you build in space.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?
The Viet Cong, hid in tunnels that were resistant to regular munitions so bunker busters would clearly help with caving those in. Also, once the US was allowed to fight properly and forced a pitched battle the won every fight. The RoE was also poor because it was supposed to be a hearts and minds campaign.
The Viet Cong was in South Vietnam. And it was more of a matter of not knowing where the tunnels were, rather than not being able to damage them. And of course the US came off better in pitched battles, but even though they were the winner of almost every major engagement they lost the war by a mile.
The bombing campaign in North Vietnam and bordering countries was furious and unrestricted, and the US still lost. In fact, not only did the bombing fail to stop the flow of supplies and troops pouring into South Vietnam or destroy NV's infrastructure, it didn't even slow it (traffic reportedly increased as the war went on). I don't see how you can spin this case of glaring air superiority doing sod all into something that helps your argument.
One nuke. Your argument is invalid.
21.7 billion as opposed to, say, Trillions? Or hundreds of billions at the least. Why would the Imperium leave the natural resources of those planet, many completely capable of supporting life on their own, and go asteroid-hunting? It's not like asteroids are a treasure trove of resources (unless you've been playing SoaSE for too long).
That's one tiny object. Not to mention that Trillions live in worse conditions that that space habitat. You want more habitats, you can double that by not making the hull out of 2 meter thick iron and steel. You can actually go even thinner, like down to ten centimeters thick. Then you have enough material to make hundreds of habitats per old habitat mean that 21.7 billion goes to 2.17 trillion or more.
Also, space has plentiful iron to make steel, lots of rare earth metals, water, and hydrocarbons. What does Earth have the space doesn't?
I think it's rather silly to argue about realism in a fantasy universe full of walking fungi and space magic.
If you want to, it's worth considering that engineers calculate how to build all kinds of stuff that actually works, like cars and computers and bridges and power plants.
There's no particular reason to doubt their calculations about space habitats.
I guess maybe you should try actually staying on topic and not insulting other people's countries. The topic was Imperial Guard Strategies. Not what should the Imperium do.
Commisar Wolfie wrote:I guess maybe you should try actually staying on topic and not insulting other people's countries. The topic was Imperial Guard Strategies. Not what should the Imperium do.
Actually showing that space is better shows that all IoM strategies are poor.
Which is still besides the point. You are trying to show that the way the game world wass created is bad. Well tough luck buddy you aren't in control of the game so guess your changes will never happen nor do your ideas really even matter.
Canadian 5th wrote:
CI world factbook, most numbers are from 2009 to 2010. Also, your nation makes less from tourism than Canada does. We're ranked 3rd in North America with 15.74 million people visiting in 2009, what are the numbers for Serbia?
Well we have a lot of mounuments that are 15x older than your country and quote from WIki on night life: "Nightlife in Serbia (particularly Belgrade) is very vivid and rich. Nighlife in Serbia is something that every tourist is fond of. You can find a wide spectar of clubs and bars that work every night. Serbians are friendly and very social so you don't have to wait for weekends to go out!" And I don't do numbers because I have a life.
Ah, so you have trades and many of your students still need to study abroad because your nation can't even handle its own security.
Are you that shorts sided? Our student willingly go to other countries to study, and around 40% of students here are from another country. Many of our student's return after studies and get job and try to bring country back on it's feet. And why do you think we cannot pass the exams for other colegue? Because we are 3'rd world country? Are you nationalist?
Notice the numbers for the internal volume of a cylinder 2km in diameter by 10km in length and then plug in 2000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. That will give you around 870,000 people per tube. The mass of each tube is such that you could make 3 habitats and one space farm with the amount of steel and iron earth makes each year. That is assuming 2m thick walls as well, which isn't how you build in space.
That is good on paper but what is good at real life? Stop talking nonsense, this planet have more recourse than any of that dwarf planets and it can barely sustain today's population. Get your head from books and look around you a little...
Canadian 5th wrote:
One nuke. Your argument is invalid.
Holly Terra... If that is so simple then why didn't they use it? If that was so simple than today we would live in Fallout 3, our world would be like Krieg after 1963 Cuban Crisis. And history proves her argument, why don't you try to disprove history? Oh right...you can't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote:I guess that Coa shouldn't bring up his nation's education standards in threads next time. I was rather enjoying proving that space habitats work.
Again...paper is one thing real world is another. Stop Trolling people for Emperor's sake...
Canadian 5th wrote:I guess that Coa shouldn't bring up his nation's education standards in threads next time. I was rather enjoying proving that space habitats work.
I like the idea a lot.
I always imagined the Tau having a type of production like that to an extent. Like a mix of space station production and ground production.
Canadian 5th wrote:I guess that Coa shouldn't bring up his nation's education standards in threads next time. I was rather enjoying proving that space habitats work.
I like the idea a lot.
I always imagined the Tau having a type of production like that to an extent. Like a mix of space station production and ground production.
Production can be lifted to space, but not all the way. Canadian was suggesting that they ignore all the planets and their resources to live on moons and mine asteroids. Why would you only want one when they could have both of their advantages.
Well he is right about that, take for example Titan station from Dead Space 2. They were only using resources in the beginning, until they mine enough so that they can sustain themselves. But the other disagree with him only because one thing: cost. Why would one invest so much money into something that expensive with low guarantee that he will receive something from that. And not to mention that if one thing goes wrong with the city there would be many lives lost ( in space you can only have 1 mistake or 2 ). And planets have 1000x more resources than asteroids, so they are more logical choices then space stations.
And space stations are more easy to defend then planet.
Canadian 5th wrote:
CI world factbook, most numbers are from 2009 to 2010. Also, your nation makes less from tourism than Canada does. We're ranked 3rd in North America with 15.74 million people visiting in 2009, what are the numbers for Serbia?
Well we have a lot of mounuments that are 15x older than your country and quote from WIki on night life: "Nightlife in Serbia (particularly Belgrade) is very vivid and rich. Nighlife in Serbia is something that every tourist is fond of. You can find a wide spectar of clubs and bars that work every night. Serbians are friendly and very social so you don't have to wait for weekends to go out!" And I don't do numbers because I have a life.
So you have a blurb from a wiki, and no numbers...
Are you that shorts sided? Our student willingly go to other countries to study, and around 40% of students here are from another country. Many of our student's return after studies and get job and try to bring country back on it's feet. And why do you think we cannot pass the exams for other colegue? Because we are 3'rd world country? Are you nationalist?
Your country is folding even faster, maybe they should try harder.
That is good on paper but what is good at real life? Stop talking nonsense, this planet have more recourse than any of that dwarf planets and it can barely sustain today's population. Get your head from books and look around you a little...
So real nasa designs aren't good enough now? Inflatable habitats and space mining are all known quantities and easy to find sources for. Also, we don't like in the planet, we most live on it so we have less area to work with than you would find in a large number of cylinders. It's basic math.
Unless It's about the Imperial Creed 
