Everyone seems to think that the IG are just meat shields for space marines. The IG win a large majority of the Imperium's battles. Space Marines are not numerious enough to deploy anywhere and everywhere. Not to mention that the IG are the bravest soilders in 40k, they go fight swarms of monsters and aliens in a fatigue and armor that coveres 20% of their body. Their not called the hammer of the Emporer because they never win a fight!
I believe you're referring to the pdf forces which are a meme now. Different than imperial guard which a lot of people always seem to "respect" So I don't know what you're talking about with imperial guard.
Hes talking about the Planetary Defense Force. Basically each planet has a pdf its just like a militia of men/women, poorly armed and yes they do tend to get slaughtered
The thing is...Guardsmen do die in droves. There billions upon billions of them. The Imperial Guard pretty much pounds their enemies into the ground with innumerable men and lots and lots of armor.
They are not meat shields for the SM, they are just meat shields in general.
forruner_mercy wrote:The thing is...Guardsmen do die in droves. There billions upon billions of them. The Imperial Guard pretty much pounds their enemies into the ground with innumerable men and lots and lots of armor.
They are not meat shields for the SM, they are just meat shields in general.
My IG friend put it best as to why the IG die in droves.
The only reason the IG has infantry is so they have something to block incoming fire from hitting the tanks.
Well, they are not exactly very brave, you see. On most worlds, they are recruited with Imperial propaganda about how inferior and weak their enemies are. Many are lured in by the trill and the thought of superiority.
And when the dark truth finally unfolds, there is that scary guy with a black cape who will shoot your head off if you refuse to fight. Many Guardsmen do not live to see fighting more than a couple of hours.
However, there are some exceptional regiments, like the Mordian Iron Guard or the Death Korps of Krieg who are so fanatic that they never even retreat.
As forruner_mercy said, they are meatshields in general. And I respect Guardsmen. I am a Guard player myself. But the Space Marines are the ones who win wars. Wars like Armageddon, Tarsis and Ichar. Usually it is the Guard who is whining that the Marines are taking all the glory. In truth, does it even matter? They are fighting for the Imperium, not for personal bravado. "War is not about glory, war is about victory."
Space Marines are the tip of the spear of the Imperium, whereas the Imperial Guard is the spear itself pushing through the enemy with unrelenting onslaught. Without the tip, the spear is useless. Without the pushing force of the spear, the tip is useless.
King Crow wrote:Oh man all i see is comments about how they just get mulched by everyone!
Because people don't know the meaning of the words "professional solders" and "creatures with strength 10x bigger then average Human".
And regarding the losses, if you closely see the engagements in WW1, WW2 etc. You will see that losses were always high for both sides. The difference is Modern Warfare because Western allies have better tech. And better tech = less casualties.
Guard is quite capable armed force of the Imperium, they die in great numbers because they are stretch across thousands of planets. And they face enemies who are much more stronger or numerous then Humans - and they still beat them.
People also think that Commissars just shot men for fun and that Guardsman weapons are as strong as arrow compared to M16. You get the idea of how much people know about military life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Space Marines wish they won as many battles as the Imperial Guard.
If they did, the Imperium wouldn't be losing territory.
Space Marines also wish to be as numerous as Imperial Guard
I agree that most regiments are top class and win many battles. But then there are some unfortunates, like the Valhallans with their Chenov who lights his cigarettes using his own men.
And they beat the enemy by numbers. The effectivity of a lasgun is crap against non-humans, like the Nids, whose carapace is too thick or the Orks who are too muscular and senseless to fall easily. That's why they shoot in massive volleys, like in 1700's. one lasgun can barely scratch an enemy's skin, while ten of them are deadly.
And it depends on commissars. Some actually try to inspire their men with heroic acts, while others "uphold" the morale simply by waving their bolt pistols and yelling that if the men do not fight, he will kill them personally."
Chenkov is just a villain sue made to make people who thought "omg guard should throw waves of men at the enemies!" more complacent.
In any half-decent story, he'd have suffered an unfortunate accident like getting hit by an ork sniper twenty miles from the front lines. But since codices don't have real, in-depth stories, they don't have to have anyone with a complex, interesting, or realistic (in-universe) backstory.
King Crow wrote:Oh man all i see is comments about how they just get mulched by everyone!
Because people don't know the meaning of the words "professional solders" and "creatures with strength 10x bigger then average Human".
And regarding the losses, if you closely see the engagements in WW1, WW2 etc. You will see that losses were always high for both sides. The difference is Modern Warfare because Western allies have better tech. And better tech = less casualties.
The training helps a bit too, though I'd hesitate to say the western powers (America really at this stage) have actually properly won a war in a while. The problem with this analogy is that in a lot of cases the Guard are the inferior, poorly equipped and poorly trained side in a war and are more analogous to early WW2 Red Army (before their troops started becoming ridiculously experienced and capable soldiers). Tau, Necrons, Eldar (of both varieties), the Traitor Legions all have much better technology and are more capable soldiers than the Guard man to man. The Guard win by liberal application of cannon fodder and high explosive ordnance in such situations. Orks are probably the only ones less professional than guardsman in war, but they make up for it by being the size of six guardsman. Tyranids outnumber them, have a greater degree of control and professionalism (yay for Hive Mind) plus the lolhuge monstrous creatures and in general beat the guard in everything save for ordnance and firepower.
It's a sad fact that the Guardsmen do die in droves, and are largely portrayed as incompetents not fit for much else than to die until the Space Marines show up. But it's not their fault when you see the hand they're dealt. Crappy equipment, donkey-cave commanders and enemies which would make any sane man commit seppuku. I have immense respect for the Guard, because in a galaxy where ten foot robot skeletons and thirty foot bugs are the norm, they take to the field with flashlights and paper armour, and despite all that are the backbone of the Imperium. I have no doubt that if the IG mysteriously vanished, the Imperium would fold in about a week.
Throughout history, cruel, unpopular and hated officers do not live long on a battlefield. Because there is often so much happening at once, and from primary & secondary sources I've seen regarding c19 warfare, it's damned confusing and no-one knows quite whats going on.
Therefore it's very easy to have an accident with a frag grenade or a lasgun and who'd know who did it? Just another officer who fell to enemy fire, so let's avenge him lads!
Chenkov does only survive because as Melissia said, he's wrapped up in plot armour & there to placate the people who desperatly want to think that the Guard just throw bodies at the enemy all the time.
As to the Guard in general, I think they're the most 'badass' army in the WH 40,000 universe. They seriously are. Many deride them for having 'flashlights' and 'paper armour', but that they take to the field and actually make a stand despite facing nasty gribbly things that would give you eternal nightmares and even win is astounding.
Yes within the Guard there are Regiments such as the DKoK and Iron Guard who don't understand the meaning, concept or even how to spell the word 'Retreat', but aside from them that most of the Guard stay on the battlefield is phenomenal and underlines why I love the Guard so much.
Melissia wrote:Space Marines wish they won as many battles as the Imperial Guard.
If they did, the Imperium wouldn't be losing territory.
The Imperial Guard is the galaxy primer professional army. They have rifles that can blow off a mans arm, can be recharged in a wall outlet. Armor that can stop a .50cal round, and be light enough to move in. However, when stacked against the vile xenos, and glory boy space marines, it only makes the weapons and armor weak.
The guard has the best tanks, the best apc, and the best artillery. They have over 40000 years of warfare to draw from. Their big book of war makes the codex astrades look like a pamplet. It is the men and women of the Guard who stand against the dark, protecting mankind. Day in and day out.
For those who actually read the fluff, the guard is more then capible of winning wars, seeing as 99% of the battles only have ig.
Melissia wrote:Chenkov is just a villain sue made to make people who thought "omg guard should throw waves of men at the enemies!" more complacent.
In any half-decent story, he'd have suffered an unfortunate accident like getting hit by an ork sniper twenty miles from the front lines. But since codices don't have real, in-depth stories, they don't have to have anyone with a complex, interesting, or realistic (in-universe) backstory.
Soviet commanders used exactly Chenkov's sort of attrition strategy during World War II. I know it's not a half-decent story, but it'll have to do.
Actually it's not just light enough to move in. A pair of flak boots, paired gauntlets/bracers, paired pauldrons, helmet, greaves, and breast/backplate are lighter than a modern body armor's vest alone, despite being arguably more effective.
Some guard regiments (Catachan) wear less of this (a light flak jacket or flak shirt, basically) which provides less protection but is almost as light as basic clothing, others wear lighter versions which cover the same amount (the flak longcoats of the DKoK for example) but with less rigid surfaces than the standard allowing more mobility.
These regiments are very mobile and flexible, but give up some protection for the lack of coverage or the lack of hardened plates of flak armor. It's still generally better than modern armor and most assuredly quite a bit lighter.
Melissia wrote:Chenkov is just a villain sue made to make people who thought "omg guard should throw waves of men at the enemies!" more complacent.
In any half-decent story, he'd have suffered an unfortunate accident like getting hit by an ork sniper twenty miles from the front lines. But since codices don't have real, in-depth stories, they don't have to have anyone with a complex, interesting, or realistic (in-universe) backstory.
Soviet commanders used exactly Chenkov's sort of attrition strategy during World War II. I know it's not a half-decent story, but it'll have to do.
Only in the beginning. Towards the later years of WW2, the Red Army and its officers were actually quite capable soldiers and tacticians with a lot of experience behind them. They still lost a lot of men in battle, but that was more due to the skill of the German Army more than "Send in the next wave" type things. Most of the tales of "Not one step backward" either came from Stalingrad or are overblown.
While I doubt Chenkov's survival is entirely reliant on plot armour (he does have his own command platoon to look after him after all), he's still a questionable commander which is probably not well liked amongst his men.
Its not that the ig are bad, its just that the really interesting battles all require the SM to come in because there are thousands of demon/heretics/bugsbugsbugs raining down on a world
Dytalus wrote:Soviet commanders used exactly Chenkov's sort of attrition strategy during World War II. I know it's not a half-decent story, but it'll have to do.
Yes, and the officers enforcing that strategy put themselves at risk in doing so, and only did so for a few years, not for decades and decades.
Not to mention, the Imperial Guard lore is littered with references of officers or commissars killed by their own men for being overzealous. It's an unspoken check in the balance of power-- nobody likes a stupid, incompetent officer to stay in power for too logn. It also adds to the grimdarkness too, because it makes the officers themselves even more paranoid.
Dytalus wrote:Soviet commanders used exactly Chenkov's sort of attrition strategy during World War II. I know it's not a half-decent story, but it'll have to do.
Yes, and the officers enforcing that strategy put themselves at risk in doing so, and only did so for a few years, not for decades and decades.
Not to mention, the Imperial Guard lore is littered with references of officers or commissars killed by their own men for being overzealous. It's an unspoken check in the balance of power-- nobody likes a stupid, incompetent officer to stay in power for too logn. It also adds to the grimdarkness too, because it makes the officers themselves even more paranoid.
A few years or a few decades; it's pretty irrelevant for the guys who were actually serving under said officers, and being utilized to make the system work. And the system did work.
Incidentally, if the Imperial Guard lore is "littered" with references to officers or commissars being killed by their own men - and I can come up with a grand total of about five - it's also littered with incidences of stupid, incompetent officers - usually generals - staying in power for quite a while. The Imperial method of standard warfare is a long, slow grind. Manpower is the most abundant resource in the Imperium. Let's not pretend that every regiment is Cadian, as it's just not true. Commissars wouldn't be necessary if officers didn't frequently waste their men's lives.
imo around here the IG seems to be overrated if anything. People try to paint it as an elite force where everyone is a Kasrkin and even the most lowly Guardsman can go toe to toe with an Aspect Warrior and as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun is better at long range then a Firewarrior with a Pulse Rifle.
I think it's a reflection of the IG's dominance on tabletop if anything, the fluff clearly dictates that the Imperial Guard is a massive human tide that relies on weight of numbers and supporting firepower such as tanks/artillery and that while the individual Guardsmen is often brave and courageous, he's usually in over his head.
Harriticus wrote:imo around here the IG seems to be overrated if anything. People try to paint it as an elite force where everyone is a Kasrkin
No, they don't.
and even the most lowly Guardsman can go toe to toe with an Aspect Warrior
Aspect Warriors != Guardians. Guardsmen can go toe to toe with Guardians and beat the pants off them in many cases.
and as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun is better at long range then a Firewarrior with a Pulse Rifle.
A Guardsman with a Lasgun is better at long range than a Fire Warrior with a Pulse Rifle in many cases. The Pulse Rifle doesn't allow for volume fire, but rather relies upon volley fire.
I think it's a reflection of the IG's dominance on tabletop if anything, the fluff clearly dictates that the Imperial Guard is a massive human tide that relies on weight of numbers and supporting firepower such as tanks/artillery and that while the individual Guardsmen is often brave and courageous, he's usually in over his head.
It's a "massive human tide" that relies on weight of numbers primarily when dealing with foes which are going to give any force problems.
Dytalus wrote:The training helps a bit too, though I'd hesitate to say the western powers (America really at this stage) have actually properly won a war in a while.
If America fought like the Imperium, they'd be steamrolling. None of this regard for civilian populations or excessive collateral damage.
But haven't properly won a war? The American military rolled the Iraqis in a few weeks and four days in 1991 and again in three weeks in 2003. The problem is not winning wars, it's peacekeeping. If America had no cultural conscience that made nation re-building a priority, you could look at the 2003 Iraq war as textbook. That was the fastest overland advance in the history of warfare. The logistical brilliance of it alone is astounding.
Peacekeeping against a hostile populace is always a grinding and drawn out affair. Ask the Greeks or Romans or the ancient Chinese. The problem for modern Western armies like America's is an insistence on winning the hearts and minds of the populace instead of breaking the enemy's will to fight. The Imperium doesn't have that problem.
Option 1: Worship the emperor and pay your taxes.
Option 2: Die.
<3 Melissia
And I love how America comes up in this discussion. How's about we leave the saviour of the planet alone, ok?
As for the Guard catching a bad rap, I can see why. Most of the time you read about some nameless, faceless army of flakjacketers that get's erased by Demons or Necrons. Which does happen.
I'm not going to quote the entire timeline from the codex (5e), but there are quite a few instances where the Guard acquit themselves amazingly. Their idea might be quantity over quality, but that quantity is going to have thousands of heavy weapons, tanks, artillery, air support, and the cast-iron balls to march right into certain death.
By the way, since we're comparing real-life to 40k, flackjackets today weigh in access of a hundred pounds. Not sure if they've found a lighter material in the future (I'd hope).
It all comes to the Regiment in the end.
Regiment from Arcadia or Flotte will not be as good as Cadian or Krieg, because there is a difference of training for several months and training for years.
Reason why people don't respect the Guard is because they are weak when compared toward other factions. But their power lies in strength of numbers, utilizing different tactics and strategies and relaying on their comrades to get the job done , and that strength makes them one of the most powerful faction in 40k.
Frankenberry wrote:By the way, since we're comparing real-life to 40k, flackjackets today weigh in access of a hundred pounds. Not sure if they've found a lighter material in the future (I'd hope).
As I've already said (in this thread even, I believe), a full suit of flak armor-- boots, greaves (or pants, as it can be woven in to fabric for more mobility but less protection-- such as longcoats, vests, and even full cloaks with hoods like snipers use), breastplate/backplate, pauldrons, helmet, and bracers/gauntlets, weigh less than a modern body armor vest-- 13.6 kg for the Improved Outer Tactical Vest, and 11 kg for the full set of standard Imperial Guard Flak Armor. described above.
Some regiments go even lighter, skipping the hardened plates for flak woven in to their uniform, such as Catachan, while others use flak greatcoats which are slightly lighter and allow the user to bend easier, such as DKoK.
The hardened flak plates can add quite a bit to the armor's protection value, just not enough to make a difference in a d6 system. The difference between, say, a flak cloak and full set of flak armor is 8kg versus 11kg.
Option 1: Worship the emperor and pay your taxes.
Option 2: Die.
<3 Melissia
And I love how America comes up in this discussion. How's about we leave the saviour of the planet alone, ok?
As for the Guard catching a bad rap, I can see why. Most of the time you read about some nameless, faceless army of flakjacketers that get's erased by Demons or Necrons. Which does happen.
I'm not going to quote the entire timeline from the codex (5e), but there are quite a few instances where the Guard acquit themselves amazingly. Their idea might be quantity over quality, but that quantity is going to have thousands of heavy weapons, tanks, artillery, air support, and the cast-iron balls to march right into certain death.
By the way, since we're comparing real-life to 40k, flackjackets today weigh in access of a hundred pounds. Not sure if they've found a lighter material in the future (I'd hope).
They are around 60 lbs in real life (I have had to wear them) that's standard issue. However you have civilian companies that make better vests but are considerably heavier.
Anyways, to me the ig are the heroes. What takes a better man? Charging Into battle knowing that you are probably gonna come out the victor and kill hundreds of the enemy for your honor (sm).
Or the normal human in his flak armour and holding his Lasgun, knowing that the bugs in front of him are going to rip him apart very painfully but maybe he can kill a couple before that happenens. (Ig)
That is also why ig win. What is the 2-5 kills every ig may get times 2,345,763,879? Exactly..... that's ALOT of dead xenos.
I believe the America comments mean against an enemy that on a similar technological level in which case it is probably Vietnam in which case it ended in a military stalemate and a political failure as always. And ultimately, given enough time in a race vs race match, the IG will win the majority of wars because Quantity is nearly always better than quality.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thermopylae is the only time I can think of where quality stood a chance of victory. WW2 the soviets won the europe campaign for all intents and purposes alone. By the time we did D-Day, the soviets were already on the german side of Poland
Table top isnt that accurate so using it to defend IG is silly. If you followed the fluff one daemon prince would wipe your entire army by either driving them mad with his prescence or dismember you.
The Vietnamese were nowhere near the tech level of the US. All of their supplies came from other countries, and their effectiveness in combat from guerilla tactics. Open combat always ended in disaster for them except during the surprise attack on the southern capital during a cease fire.
Also Russia was nowhere near that point. If they had been the US would have just pranced up the beaches with no resistance. The army air care however had thouroghly stomped the German air force, so much so that only 1 fighter showed up in the defense of the beaches.
Anyways, that was close. The Tau derail gun almost claimed another thread!
If daemon princes were that strong why wouldn't they just march on terra already? I don't think that they can wipe entire armies. They're really powerful but not that much.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:If daemon princes were that strong why wouldn't they just march on terra already? I don't think that they can wipe entire armies. They're really powerful but not that much.
Some are that powerful, not all. The problem (IIRC) with Daemon princes is they are confined like other Daemons to the Warp. They can only stay in the real world for so long before they have to go back, unless there's a whole lot of Chaos presence on a world. Terra probably also has loads of protections against Daemon Princes just waddling up and driving everyone insane/giving them all the plague/making them all sex each other up.
No but Stalingrad was the true turning point in any case. We simply didn't have the manpower to do the Nazi war machine in. The Soviet possession of Stalingrad never fell below 10%.
there was virtually no real resistance from the Luftwaffe by mid 1944. Which kind of throws "control the air, control the battle" dogma out of the window
But I digress; I imagine that the GK chapter moon being in terra's back yard is a bit of a deterrent
xXSir MontyXx wrote:If daemon princes were that strong why wouldn't they just march on terra already? I don't think that they can wipe entire armies. They're really powerful but not that much.
Some are that powerful, not all. The problem (IIRC) with Daemon princes is they are confined like other Daemons to the Warp. They can only stay in the real world for so long before they have to go back, unless there's a whole lot of Chaos presence on a world. Terra probably also has loads of protections against Daemon Princes just waddling up and driving everyone insane/giving them all the plague/making them all sex each other up.
Depends.. Some have speacial requirements. But some like Ghargatuloth have caused massive damage. The first time he came into real space he destroyed worlds and it took years to stop him. His second appearance was lack luster do to writer's armor given to the gk. But any guard who came near him became psychopaths and turned on their fellows. Plus the mention of his name cause people to lose their minds. One thing to note as well is why would they care about marching to Terra? Not everything cares about JUST the human race.
No but Stalingrad was the true turning point in any case. We simply didn't have the manpower to do the Nazi war machine in. The Soviet possession of Stalingrad never fell below 10%.
there was virtually no real resistance from the Luftwaffe by mid 1944. Which kind of throws "control the air, control the battle" dogma out of the window
But I digress; I imagine that the GK chapter moon being in terra's back yard is a bit of a deterrent
Without a doubt the Russians were the other half of the equation there is no way the US and Britain could have done to on their own. I was just disagreeing with how deep the Russians had gotten when d-day happened.
Yeas I forgot about the whole warp leash thing daemon princes got going on. I'm not sure why they want to be demon princes all the time..... ur huge amounts of power are so restricted.
Draigo wrote:Table top isnt that accurate so using it to defend IG is silly. If you followed the fluff one daemon prince would wipe your entire army by either driving them mad with his prescence or dismember you.
Aaaaaand while that regiment keeps said Demon Prince busy, I flatten the fifteen surrounding miles with massed ordnance fire.
GW made armies relatively balanced via point cost, so you won't find SM's Steven-Segal-kneck-breaking whole regiments of Guard, regardless of what you read in fluff. Fluff is the only thing that's going to paint Guardsmen in a somewhat weak way, even then...I haven't read anything that had the Guard be total pansies. Aside from PDF...who are usually killed to a man.
HUZZAH! An American that accepts that the west essentially prodded the Nazis saying "look at us, ignore the massive army of angry Russians behind you" unlike that Geniodark or something who just wouldn't accept that the US would lose every time to the IoM.
IIRC it depends on both the Daemon prince's allegiance and power right to achieve the desired affect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And everyone is a meatshield for someone I.e civilians are meatshields for PDF who in turn are meatshields for the IG who are meatshields for SM who are meatshields for well you get the picture
HUZZAH! An American that accepts that the west essentially prodded the Nazis saying "look at us, ignore the massive army of angry Russians behind you" unlike that Geniodark or something who just wouldn't accept that the US would lose every time to the IoM.
IIRC it depends on both the Daemon prince's allegiance and power right to achieve the desired affect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And everyone is a meatshield for someone I.e civilians are meatshields for PDF who in turn are meatshields for the IG who are meatshields for SM who are meatshields for well you get the picture
I'm very loyal to and proud of my country. But I'm not stupid. Had Russia been neutral and not forced hitler to fight a two front war. The world would be a very different place.
Draigo wrote:Table top isnt that accurate so using it to defend IG is silly. If you followed the fluff one daemon prince would wipe your entire army by either driving them mad with his prescence or dismember you.
Aaaaaand while that regiment keeps said Demon Prince busy, I flatten the fifteen surrounding miles with massed ordnance fire.
GW made armies relatively balanced via point cost, so you won't find SM's Steven-Segal-kneck-breaking whole regiments of Guard, regardless of what you read in fluff. Fluff is the only thing that's going to paint Guardsmen in a somewhat weak way, even then...I haven't read anything that had the Guard be total pansies. Aside from PDF...who are usually killed to a man.
When it comes down to it the SM are not more important to then Imperium then the IG.
SM get you victories but the IG is the bulk of your army that makes those victories possible.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:T
Also Russia was nowhere near that point. If they had been the US would have just pranced up the beaches with no resistance. The army air care however had thouroghly stomped the German air force, so much so that only 1 fighter showed up in the defense of the beaches.
He is right I'm afraid, the Soviets were at the gates of Warshaw when D-Day happened. But they camp there until 1945. Adn 90% of all German losses in the entire war were on Eastern Front, do the numbers.
If daemon princes were that strong why wouldn't they just march on terra already? I don't think that they can wipe entire armies. They're really powerful but not that much.
1. They have hard time entering our reality.
2. The moment they enter Grey Knights are dispatched to get rid of them.
3. They also must fight other forces who outnumber them ( Astartes, Sororitas, Guard, Navy, Inquisition, Eldar ).
Dytalus wrote:The training helps a bit too, though I'd hesitate to say the western powers (America really at this stage) have actually properly won a war in a while.
If America fought like the Imperium, they'd be steamrolling. None of this regard for civilian populations or excessive collateral damage.
But haven't properly won a war? The American military rolled the Iraqis in a few weeks and four days in 1991 and again in three weeks in 2003. The problem is not winning wars, it's peacekeeping. If America had no cultural conscience that made nation re-building a priority, you could look at the 2003 Iraq war as textbook. That was the fastest overland advance in the history of warfare. The logistical brilliance of it alone is astounding.
Peacekeeping against a hostile populace is always a grinding and drawn out affair. Ask the Greeks or Romans or the ancient Chinese. The problem for modern Western armies like America's is an insistence on winning the hearts and minds of the populace instead of breaking the enemy's will to fight. The Imperium doesn't have that problem.
I think the "properly winning a war" thing meant there haven't been the western powers haven't fought an enemy remotely close to them technologically in the past half century. Every conventional army might as well be made of paper for all the fight it puts up against us.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:
I'm very loyal to and proud of my country. But I'm not stupid. Had Russia been neutral and not forced hitler to fight a two front war. The world would be a very different place.
Russia was Hitler's target. Everything in western Europe was just a preemptive strike to stop France and Britain from hitting Germany from behind while they were trying to deal with eastern Europe.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:T
Also Russia was nowhere near that point. If they had been the US would have just pranced up the beaches with no resistance. The army air care however had thouroghly stomped the German air force, so much so that only 1 fighter showed up in the defense of the beaches.
He is right I'm afraid, the Soviets were at the gates of Warshaw when D-Day happened. But they camp there until 1945. Adn 90% of all German losses in the entire war were on Eastern Front, do the numbers.
If daemon princes were that strong why wouldn't they just march on terra already? I don't think that they can wipe entire armies. They're really powerful but not that much.
1. They have hard time entering our reality.
2. The moment they enter Grey Knights are dispatched to get rid of them.
3. They also must fight other forces who outnumber them ( Astartes, Sororitas, Guard, Navy, Inquisition, Eldar ).
I have never heard of that. But I will admit that I'm wrong. I guess the Russians.Camping out made me think they couldn't have been that close.
The IG = The hammer of the imperium
It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
I think it's the fact that so many of them die that people misinterpret this as weakness. But with the IG, I believe the ends justify the means. So what if millions die, if the job is done, it's done. Of course it could be done without the loss of so many lives, that's where your tacticians come in.
HUZZAH! An American that accepts that the west essentially prodded the Nazis saying "look at us, ignore the massive army of angry Russians behind you" unlike that Geniodark or something who just wouldn't accept that the US would lose every time to the IoM.
IIRC it depends on both the Daemon prince's allegiance and power right to achieve the desired affect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And everyone is a meatshield for someone I.e civilians are meatshields for PDF who in turn are meatshields for the IG who are meatshields for SM who are meatshields for well you get the picture
I'm very loyal to and proud of my country. But I'm not stupid. Had Russia been neutral and not forced hitler to fight a two front war. The world would be a very different place.
A daemon prince of slaanesh.... gross.
If the Swedes hadn't sold the Germans their steel, the war would have been over by summer '41.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:
They are around 60 lbs in real life (I have had to wear them) that's standard issue. However you have civilian companies that make better vests but are considerably heavier.
Anyways, to me the ig are the heroes. What takes a better man? Charging Into battle knowing that you are probably gonna come out the victor and kill hundreds of the enemy for your honor (sm).
Or the normal human in his flak armour and holding his Lasgun, knowing that the bugs in front of him are going to rip him apart very painfully but maybe he can kill a couple before that happenens. (Ig)
That is also why ig win. What is the 2-5 kills every ig may get times 2,345,763,879? Exactly..... that's ALOT of dead xenos.
Flak armour must be grossly efficient then. To be so lightweight and strong, yet ridiculously easy to mass produce.
blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Why are we talking about Russians?
Simply put, as many have said before:
The IG = The hammer of the imperium It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
Because that's essentially Soviet WWII tactics. I mean, we're talking about the country that had such military gems like sending men into battle without a weapon with the orders to 'pick one up as they go' and having guys with submachine guns on your side that'll shoot you if you don't go towards the other guys with guns that were shooting at you.
"Comrade-Captain! German tanks are approaching, and we have no anti-tank weaponry!" "We shall stop their treads with the bodies of our men, and take their tanks for our own. Forward!"
"Comrade-Captain! German machine gunners have our men pinned down!" "We have more bodies and courage than they have bullets. Forward!"
Comrade-Captain! The Germans are coming, and our artillery is out of ammunition!" "Our soldiers have strong hearts and heads! Load our men into the cannons! Forward!"
...Ok, that last bit may be hyperbole. But you get the idea.
I love the Russians during WWII. It's a good thing they were around, or else Hitler probably would have slapped the Allies right back out of France.
blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Why are we talking about Russians?
Simply put, as many have said before:
The IG = The hammer of the imperium
It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
Because that's essentially Soviet WWII tactics.
"Comrade-Captain! German tanks are approaching, and we have no anti-tank weaponry!"
"We shall stop their treads with the bodies of our men, and take their tanks for our own. Forward!"
"Comrade-Captain! German machine gunners have our men pinned down!"
"We have more bodies and courage than they have bullets. Forward!"
Comrade-Captain! The Germans are coming, and our artillery is out of ammunition!"
"Our soldiers have strong hearts and heads! Load our men into the cannons!"
...Ok, that last bit may be hyperbole. But you get the idea.
Joey wrote:But they'll still only kill a man 50% of the time when fired at point blank range?
Shoot someone in the face or neck with a lasgun, and they're dead as the heat from the lasgun vaporizes their blood on impact and kills them instantly. Anywhere else, you'll likely get hydrostatic shock from the massive expansion due to flash boiling blood.
Remember, boltguns enter in to a person and then explode, and they're only S4. If you ignore all lore and only care for the abstract d6 system used in tabletop, then you'd have to contend with the fact that shooting someone in the chest, then ahving the .75 cal munition explode underneath one's ribcage, only has a 2/3rds chance of killing someone.
But that would be stupid, right? I agree, it is stupid, very stupid in fact. So don't say "fluff doesn't count". Because it does. The numbers in tabletop are abstracted numbers, not direct realistic ones. Even Dark Heresy, which is quite a bit less abstracted, is still abstracted to a degree.
Joey wrote:I have read the entire Gaunt's Ghosts and most of the HH books, I know full well the effects of weapons in fluff.
So your question was pointless and a waste of time. Okay. Go read the part about how tabletop isn't intended to directly represent how the weapons would effect bodies, but instead only abstractly do.
blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:
It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
I think it's the fact that so many of them die that people misinterpret this as weakness. But with the IG, I believe the ends justify the means. So what if millions die, if the job is done, it's done. Of course it could be done without the loss of so many lives, that's where your tacticians come in.
People watch to much movies, in movie one solder die and people say that is not pretty. What do they expect? Hundreds and sometimes thousands solders die in battles, campaigns and wars. That's the reality of warfare.
Guard is dying in millions because they work on a much larger scale. While one Earth army operate in country or several most of the time Imperial Guard operate on whole planet, and sometimes several planets. The bigger the territory - the numerous the enemy and grater losses.
infinite_array wrote:
Because that's essentially Soviet WWII tactics. I mean, we're talking about the country that had such military gems like sending men into battle without a weapon with the orders to 'pick one up as they go' and having guys with submachine guns on your side that'll shoot you if you don't go towards the other guys with guns that were shooting at you.
Whiel most of this is true I must correct you on some points:
"Comrade-Captain! German tanks are approaching, and we have no anti-tank weaponry!"
"We shall stop their treads with the bodies of our men, and take their tanks for our own. Forward!"
This is in fact quite successful strategy, especially in street fighting. Ever heard about sticky bombs? And grenades inside tank? They didn't rush into tanks from front, they rushed from sides to get close enough to it to plant explosives or drop several granedes inside and the job is done. G.I. in Normandy have done the similar thing if I am not mistaken.
"Comrade-Captain! German machine gunners have our men pinned down!"
"We have more bodies and courage than they have bullets. Forward!"
While this was true for several battles, Soviets also had LOTS and LOTS of T-34 yo use against fortify positions.
Comrade-Captain! The Germans are coming, and our artillery is out of ammunition!"
"Our soldiers have strong hearts and heads! Load our men into the cannons! Forward!"
While this never happened.
I love the Russians during WWII. It's a good thing they were around, or else Hitler probably would have slapped the Allies right back out of France.
I love them to, they were brave courageous solders who stooped the Nazis and beat them back to Berlin. But they didn't do that alone, British and USA send them trucks and ammo to use. But they have lunatic for leader ( Stalin ) and most commanders were incompetent. I like Zukov, he won the battle for Moscow, Kursk ( aldo I think that Germans should have won there ) and Berlin ( that was only because Stalin let him attack it ). But he used one tactic to many times ( Artillery follower by infantry and tanks ) that he got his ass almost owned in Battle of the Seelow Heights ( Germans just camped in bunkers and wait until artillery have finished, then they get out of bunkers, into positions and pawned Soviet infantry. If not for strategic reserves and tanks the Soviets would lost. ).
The fact still remains: Germans have better tanks and far better trained infantry. But they lost the war because of sheer numbers of troops put against them. ( Just take the number of German Tigers and compare them to the number of M4 Shermans. You will get the idea ). And that's how the Guard fight.
Because there are so MANY Guard Regiments in the Galaxy ( millions ) they can't produce high-quality guns ( Bolters, Meltas, Plasma ) for ALL troops. The is why the Guard fight with combining firepower and slow movement rather then raiding and lighting strikes ( Space Marines ).
Brother Coa wrote: Because there are so MANY Guard Regiments in the Galaxy ( millions ) they can't produce high-quality guns ( Bolters, Meltas, Plasma ) for ALL troops. The is why the Guard fight with combining firepower and slow movement rather then raiding and lighting strikes ( Space Marines ).
Actually, I'd argue that the Guard do have some high quality guns - as far as infantry weapons go, the lasrifle is pretty damn awesome. I mean, we're talking about a weapon that can recharge itself by tossing the power cells into a fire. Sure, it'll bring down the quantity of shots, but let's see a Bolter or Plasma Gun do that when it runs out.
Also, those little 'vignettes' of Private and Captain were just jokes - I didn't actually mean for them to be taken as actual historical happenings. In the first one, for example, the Captain is ordering his men to leap into the treads of the approaching tanks in order to clog them up.
1. The Russians didn't go to war with the Germans on a whim, they were allies. Hitler ordered the invasion of Russia during the incomplete conquest of Europe and Africa, and the 3rd Reich pushed as far as Stalingrad ANYWAY. So let's not talk about how amazing the Russian army is, ok?
2. The Russians didn't push the Germans back because of their tactical genius or the bravery of their soldiers, it was the incompetance of German command that cost the Germans the East. A supply chain that ran the length of Russia to the front lines, lack of adequate air support, and let's not forget the weather. Russians didn't cost the Germans the war, the GERMAN Leadership cost the Germans the war.
3. Once America was involved, it was game over for the Germans. There was NO way they could compete with the economical and industrial monster that was America in the 40s. Had the Germans taken their time, beaten England, taken Africa and NOT declared war on America and Russia...things would have been different.
The OP was talking from a fluff standpoint, not from the tabletop. There's no reason to take the route of "LAWL TABLETOP RULEZ SEZ IG R BETTERZ THAN SPEHSS MAHREENZ". Fluff wise everyone get's their asses beat from time to time. Sometimes it's the SM's getting annihilated (Maines Errant anyone?) and sometimes if's IG wasting Tyranids like it's cool.
Brother Coa wrote:Because there are so MANY Guard Regiments in the Galaxy ( millions ) they can't produce high-quality guns ( Bolters, Meltas, Plasma ) for ALL troops. The is why the Guard fight with combining firepower and slow movement rather then raiding and lighting strikes ( Space Marines ).
Why would they though? Meltas aren't front line weaponry for basic troops, the range is too short and rate of fire too slow. Neither are plasmaguns really-- plasmaguns are kinda overkill against any enemy that isn't in power armor equivalent.
Think about the difference between WWII weapons and modern weapons-- most WWII weapons actually do more damage per shot than modern weapons, but it was determined that they were actually overkill for the ranges at which the average fight took place, thus even though we can easily still use fully automatic weapons of the same caliber, we generally don't because this is more efficient and the recoil, rifle design, etc of modern weapons makes them generally better. A lasgun is more useful to a general army than a plasmagun is ,but the plasmagun still has its place for taking down heavily armored opponents (similar to anti-materiel rifles in modern warfare, albeit without the massive recoil and needing to set up as a team). Boltguns themselves aren't that expensive, but the ammunition is-- and boltguns require constant maintenance to work properly. Against humans, again, boltguns are usually overkill, although they are much more useful against Orks and the like for the short time in which you have ammo-- but against a horde of Orks, you'd still probably want lasguns simply for sheer number of shots and being able to successfully pursue extended campaigns (unlike boltguns or really any solid ammunition weapons).
Lasguns avoid all of these problems. They have a respectable rate of fire, they are not specialized against rarely seen enemies, and they have effectively infinite ammunition as long as there's sunlight or a power generator of some kind (such as a Chimera or even a basic civilian one).
A Guard army equipped with all lasguns is going to slaughter a guard army equipped with all meltaguns. The other two weapons, especially plasmaguns, are nowhere near as reliable-- the lasgun will fire reliably come snowstorm, heavy rain, or the clouds of smoke from a smoke grenade. The boltgun will probably jam up without constant maintenance, and the plasmaguns have a problem with overheating regardless of terrain.
Really, lasguns are the better of the four weapons you mentioned for a front line troop. Boltguns work well for elite troops that don't need to fight extended battles and wars, such as the Astartes or Sisters... but not for Guard. Lasguns ARE high quality. The quality that they have is just a different quality (one of general usefulness of its design) instead of raw firepower.
Frankenberry wrote:1. The Russians didn't go to war with the Germans on a whim, they were allies. Hitler ordered the invasion of Russia during the incomplete conquest of Europe and Africa, and the 3rd Reich pushed as far as Stalingrad ANYWAY. So let's not talk about how amazing the Russian army is, ok?
2. The Russians didn't push the Germans back because of their tactical genius or the bravery of their soldiers, it was the incompetance of German command that cost the Germans the East. A supply chain that ran the length of Russia to the front lines, lack of adequate air support, and let's not forget the weather. Russians didn't cost the Germans the war, the GERMAN Leadership cost the Germans the war.
3. Once America was involved, it was game over for the Germans. There was NO way they could compete with the economical and industrial monster that was America in the 40s. Had the Germans taken their time, beaten England, taken Africa and NOT declared war on America and Russia...things would have been different.
The OP was talking from a fluff standpoint, not from the tabletop. There's no reason to take the route of "LAWL TABLETOP RULEZ SEZ IG R BETTERZ THAN SPEHSS MAHREENZ". Fluff wise everyone get's their asses beat from time to time. Sometimes it's the SM's getting annihilated (Maines Errant anyone?) and sometimes if's IG wasting Tyranids like it's cool.
Good post, just one point though.
It's not England, it's the UK or Britain.
If the Nazis had beaten England then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Not to mention the Isle of Man) would still be fighting.
Don't worry about it though, people over here, typically English people, make the same mistake too.
Although in my travels I have come across people who believe that Scotland is an island and England has a land border with France.
Anyway, it is the fate of the fighting man to be under appreciated I'm afraid.
The way the troops were treated on their return from Vietnam (for example) was inexcusable. They were conscripts carrying out the will of their government, their democratically elected government.
Regardless of what you think of a war you can never ever blame the soldiers for it.
The IG are the real heroes since they fight the same enemies as the elite forces of the imperium but without the equipment or genetic manipulation.
Brother Coa wrote:That what I am saying: Guard use cheap but effective way to defeat it's enemies.
No, that is not what you were saying.
You were saying the lasgun is inferior. You were wrong.
The lasgun is actually the superior choice, not the inferior one. The lasgun is actually superior for front line troops in a long war. The lasgun is actually superior for facing down large numbers of enemies. The lasgun is actually superior for reliability and ease of maintenance.
The lasgun is not inferior to the other weapons. It fulfills its role better, arguably, than any other weapon in 40k.
Brother Coa wrote:
The fact still remains: Germans have better tanks and far better trained infantry. But they lost the war because of sheer numbers of troops put against them. ( Just take the number of German Tigers and compare them to the number of M4 Shermans. You will get the idea ). And that's how the Guard fight.
That's not the only reason, though. The Germans had some better tanks - most of their tanks were not superior. At the start of the invasion of Russia, the Russians had superior tanks and (depending on the statistics you use - most I've read state that the Russian military forces still outnumbered the German military at the onset) more men but were still losing.
Numbers alone do not a victory make. History has shown that countless times.
Generally, I'd agree that the Imperial Guard don't get enough credit from the fans of 40K, but in the various Codexes they don't seem represented too badly (sure, they often lose, but in the new Necron codex for instance, one Cadian Regiment leaves the army of whatever-Necron-Lord-travels-around-liberating-Necron-worlds-and-moving-on crippled despite being destroyed.
Melissia wrote:
You were saying the lasgun is inferior. You were wrong.
The lasgun is actually the superior choice, not the inferior one.
The lasgun is actually superior for front line troops in a long war.
The lasgun is actually superior for facing down large numbers of enemies.
The lasgun is actually superior for reliability and ease of maintenance.
The lasgun is not inferior to the other weapons. It fulfills its role better, arguably, than any other weapon in 40k.
I didn't say that, I just said that Guard won't use those kind of powerful weapons because they don't need to.
If I type it in that way that I actually said that Lasgun is inferior - then I am sorry.
Lasgun is maybe less powerful against certain enemies but it is still good and reliable weapon for the Guard to use. Especially when it comes with add-ons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Not really...
Guard are sometimes used cheaply and other times they aren't.
It depends on the quality of the people they are fighting...
Like I said: It depends on the Regiment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
That's not the only reason, though. The Germans had some better tanks - most of their tanks were not superior. At the start of the invasion of Russia, the Russians had superior tanks and (depending on the statistics you use - most I've read state that the Russian military forces still outnumbered the German military at the onset) more men but were still losing.
I think that Tiger, King Tiger, Panther and Mouse have something to add to this.
Numbers alone do not a victory make. History has shown that countless times.
True, in the end it all comes to strategy and using available resources.
Generally, I'd agree that the Imperial Guard don't get enough credit from the fans of 40K, but in the various Codexes they don't seem represented too badly (sure, they often lose, but in the new Necron codex for instance, one Cadian Regiment leaves the army of whatever-Necron-Lord-travels-around-liberating-Necron-worlds-and-moving-on crippled despite being destroyed.
In new Necron codex it is the Catachans that got slaughtered in fluff.
Brother Coa wrote:
I think that Tiger, King Tiger, Panther and Mouse have something to add to this.
Yes, some of their tanks were superior in combat terms. Not all of them were. You also didn't address the point that the Russians had superior tanks at the start of the war and were not defeated due to numerical superiority (up to the point where the Germans were stopped, at least).
In new Necron codex it is the Catachans that got slaughtered in fluff.
Well yes, they do all die, but they were attacking a Tombworld and we don't know how much damage they managed to inflict before going down. My point was that while the Guard generally die, I haven't seen any cases where it's been "they all died and killed hardly any or none of their foes". Mostly they don't state the casualties of the other side.
Gotta go with Germany on the tanks. However the tank discussion is JUST LIKE the Lasgun discussion. Was the T-34 the superior tank for the Russians in Stalingrad? HELL YES! They were rolling out of the factories AZ Germans were only several hundred feet from the doors. They were mass produce able. The king tiger tank for instanced.... was a god tank. There were reports of king tigers driving back for repairs with 250 impact marks from Sherman shells.
So in a war of attrition T-34 wins, in a one on one fight. All of germanies tanks win.
So in a war of attrition (as are most in 40k) Lasgun wins. In a one on one with 99% of other weapons in 40k lasgun loses.
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote: Yes, some of their tanks were superior in combat terms.
Dude, German Tiger tank was best tank in the whole war. It had 88mm main gun, he could blow any tank from far away and he could take a punch himself ( in one 6 hour engagement Tiger was hit 227 times, and despite all that damage it was able to drive it's crew 40 miles to safety ).
Overall the best tank of the war will always be T-34.
Funny thing about small arms (lasguns in 40k and m4/ak-47 in realworld ), other than in house to house and CQB, the casualty makers( at greater than 300m ) are the support weapons, M249/ m240B, the rest of the squad pretty much adds to the volume of fire ( we always called them being noise makers )
And the real killer in any major military action is Artillery, more KIA/WIA are caused by that then any other part of the battlefield. Artillery king of battle.
Now if the lasgun is weaker than this or that weapon on the 40k battlefield is not really relevant to the bigger battlefield picture, it does what it is designed to do, lend more volume to anti-personnel fire and buy time for the real killers to do their work, and occasionally they will have a good day and do some ofthe killing themselves.
sometimes the stupiest thing to do against the IG is just exchange fire with them , confident in your weapons superiority to the humble lasgun..cause the next whistling sound could be the last thing you ever hear.....
Incoming artillery has the right of way
BTW : T-34 is also the most destroyed tank of the war 54k built aprox 42k destroyed, T-34 is only the best when regarding ease of production ,ease of use, Russian T-34 engines were rated for hours of engine life before the engine had to be completely replaced usually 100-120 hours of use.
So good tank, vital to victory, and when first fielded was a nasty surprise to the germans, but by 43-44 it was out classed by german tanks, to the point where ramming was taught to russian tankers as a means of sacrificing a tank to kill a german one, best designed german tank was likely the mid to late production Panther.
the pre-courser to the modern MBT, speed, firepower, protection.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:Funny thing about small arms (lasguns in 40k and m4/ak-47 in realworld ), other than in house to house and CQB, the casualty makers( at greater than 300m ) are the support weapons, M249/ m240B, the rest of the squad pretty much adds to the volume of fire ( we always called them being noise makers )
You are right, machine gun pack hell of a punch at range, and it has more ammo to. Good thing that modern assault rifles comes with precision scope.
And the real killer in any major military action is Artillery, more KIA/WIA are caused by that then any other part of the battlefield. Artillery king of battle.
It was until WW2 when it was replaced by air force that could do a lot more damage then artillery ( Dresden anyone? )
Now if the lasgun is weaker than this or that weapon on the 40k battlefield is not really relevant to the bigger battlefield picture, it does what it is designed to do, lend more volume to anti-personnel fire and buy time for the real killers to do their work, and occasionally they will have a good day and do some ofthe killing themselves.
sometimes the stupiest thing to do against the IG is just exchange fire with them , confident in your weapons superiority to the humble lasgun..cause the next whistling sound could be the last thing you ever hear.....
Right, that is why Orks tend to defeat the Guard with sheer number together with Tyranids and Chaos Legions. While all other tend to outgun them or outrun them.
Brother Coa wrote:
Dude, German Tiger tank was best tank in the whole war. It had 88mm main gun, he could blow any tank from far away and he could take a punch himself ( in one 6 hour engagement Tiger was hit 227 times, and despite all that damage it was able to drive it's crew 40 miles to safety ).
Overall the best tank of the war will always be T-34.
I'm well aware of the combat capabilities of the Tiger tank. You know the whole "some of their tanks were superior" line I used? The Tiger tanks were among those I meant. However, the Panthers were not superior to every tank the Russians or Americans used (not sure about the British tanks). Tell me this though, were more Tiger tanks taken out by enemy tanks or anti-tank guns?
I've also heard an argument that the best balanced tank was actually the Panther. The problem is that it's hard to tell which would be the most efficient tank since the Russians had more resources to draw upon if I recall correctly (and weren't suffering as much sabotage such as that the Germans suffered from the French Resistance).
Dresden was bombing a city, not a military field formation, even today arty causes more casulties, planes run out of fuel, or get shot down, weather inhibits them, but artillery is always there.
For indescriminate damage yeah sure bombs dropped from 20k feet will cause alot of booms and make craters and blow up buildings, but still you use surcical strikes against point targets. But arty shells are cheaper, and can't be jammed, shot down, still the king .
I ( observed ), spectre and a B-1 strike, was a awesome sight, and pretty scary, but still had to call in arty to dig the bastards out.
Brother Coa wrote: Dude, German Tiger tank was best tank in the whole war. It had 88mm main gun, he could blow any tank from far away and he could take a punch himself ( in one 6 hour engagement Tiger was hit 227 times, and despite all that damage it was able to drive it's crew 40 miles to safety ).
You mean one of the worst.
The Tiger was over-engineered, prone to mechanical failures, horrifically slow, and it's 88 gun took forever to load. By the time the Tiger was able to get a couple of shots off, they were usually being swarmed by Allied or Soviet tanks and infantry. They were also produced in such small numbers to basically be ineffectual. And once the Russians got their ISU-152's rolling, that was the end of the Tiger.
It's funny - the Germans, the guys who developed and used the idea of rapid moving tanks, completely moved away from that doctrine to make over-engineered crawling bricks.
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
I'm well aware of the combat capabilities of the Tiger tank. You know the whole "some of their tanks were superior" line I used? The Tiger tanks were among those I meant. However, the Panthers were not superior to every tank the Russians or Americans used (not sure about the British tanks). Tell me this though, were more Tiger tanks taken out by enemy tanks or anti-tank guns?
Ok then, sorry
Let me answer:
When looking at WW2 to me the Germans overall had the best tanks in the whole war. Beside Soviet T-34, american M26 Pershing Joseph Stalin tanks.
The point with that is that Germans had their best tanks from 1942, 1943 while allies developed theirs much later in the war and rarely used them ( Pershing only had action in WW2 and Korea ). Because of that to me the Germans always had upper hand in tanks in the war.
More Tiger tanks were taken out by enemy tanks, I think that most of them suffered most damage on eastern front from T-34.
I've also heard an argument that the best balanced tank was actually the Panther. The problem is that it's hard to tell which would be the most efficient tank since the Russians had more resources to draw upon if I recall correctly (and weren't suffering as much sabotage such as that the Germans suffered from the French Resistance).
Panther was ideal tank, Germans build them using T-34 design and adding strong main gun ( 75mm ). It was lighter then Tiger and just slightly less powerful. The only problem was the transmission because they mounted transmission that was not able to sustain the weight of the tank itself. I heard that getting the tank's 4'th gear was nearly impossible, and the transmission broken most of time.
Brother Coa wrote:
Dude, German Tiger tank was best tank in the whole war. It had 88mm main gun, he could blow any tank from far away and he could take a punch himself ( in one 6 hour engagement Tiger was hit 227 times, and despite all that damage it was able to drive it's crew 40 miles to safety ).
Overall the best tank of the war will always be T-34.
I'm well aware of the combat capabilities of the Tiger tank. You know the whole "some of their tanks were superior" line I used? The Tiger tanks were among those I meant. However, the Panthers were not superior to every tank the Russians or Americans used (not sure about the British tanks). Tell me this though, were more Tiger tanks taken out by enemy tanks or anti-tank guns?
I've also heard an argument that the best balanced tank was actually the Panther. The problem is that it's hard to tell which would be the most efficient tank since the Russians had more resources to draw upon if I recall correctly (and weren't suffering as much sabotage such as that the Germans suffered from the French Resistance).
The best late war russian tanks saw little to no combat, the IS / IS-2 / IS-3 barely made it to combat, the final version of the T-34/85 was used in Korea, and regularly was killed by sherman "easy 8 ", the other big russian tank player was the KV series a true heavy tank when first encountered by the germans.
More tanks of all kinds on all sides were killed by AT-guns,( hence the name ) the Stug III is the leading german self propeled killer outstripping all other types of german armored killers.
Western allies SOP when encountering german heavy armor (panthers and tigers ) was to mark and call for artillery and/or air if available, since based on battlefield studies killing one of these targets generally cost them 5 or so of their own tanks, if this was due to tech edge or better crews does not really matter, ws the fact of the day.
And Panther was not based on the T-34 it's sloped armor was inspired by the inovation pioneered in the T-34, but it was designed to be superior to it in all ways, and yes the initial production runs suffred many teething issues, but by the D/G models it was a solid machine, ole her hitler insisted it be ready and pushed into kursk before it was fully tested, so go figure it had problems.
The thing that truly set german tanks above thier opponents was the guns, and the crews, mobility wise, they were not incredible, but if they hit something it usually died.
Funny fact to, the suspension that made the T-34 such a mobile machine was designed in the USA by a fella named christie and was turned down by the american army such a waste.
infinite_array wrote:
The Tiger was over-engineered, prone to mechanical failures, horrifically slow, and it's 88 gun took forever to load. By the time the Tiger was able to get a couple of shots off, they were usually being swarmed by Allied or Soviet tanks and infantry. They were also produced in such small numbers to basically be ineffectual. And once the Russians got their ISU-152's rolling, that was the end of the Tiger.
Quite true The only reason German superiority tanks were losing was: they destroy one Sherman but the rest 20 of them destroy the Tiger.
Tiger was best used for long range support ( Germans actually use his as artillery weapon since 88 has a BIG range.
It's funny - the Germans, the guys who developed and used the idea of rapid moving tanks, completely moved away from that doctrine to make over-engineered crawling bricks.
That;s funny. I thought that German engineers actually build the tank AROUND the main gun.
Similar to how Americans made A-10 Thunderbolt.
infinite_array wrote:
The Tiger was over-engineered, prone to mechanical failures, horrifically slow, and it's 88 gun took forever to load. By the time the Tiger was able to get a couple of shots off, they were usually being swarmed by Allied or Soviet tanks and infantry. They were also produced in such small numbers to basically be ineffectual. And once the Russians got their ISU-152's rolling, that was the end of the Tiger.
Quite true The only reason German superiority tanks were losing was: they destroy one Sherman but the rest 20 of them destroy the Tiger.
Tiger was best used for long range support ( Germans actually use his as artillery weapon since 88 has a BIG range.
It's funny - the Germans, the guys who developed and used the idea of rapid moving tanks, completely moved away from that doctrine to make over-engineered crawling bricks.
That;s funny. I thought that German engineers actually build the tank AROUND the main gun.
Similar to how Americans made A-10 Thunderbolt.
It's funny - the Germans, the guys who developed and used the idea of rapid moving tanks, completely moved away from that doctrine to make over-engineered crawling bricks.
That;s funny. I thought that German engineers actually build the tank AROUND the main gun. Similar to how Americans made A-10 Thunderbolt.
I was referring more to the combat doctrine of Blitzkrieg - I mean, back in the early parts of the war, German tanks had machine guns and 2cm guns as their main armament. But they were fast!
As we get to the closing of the war, we see stuff like the Tiger, Kingtiger, and the Maus:
I mean, it looks scary, but something's wrong when an infantryman's best chance of getting away from a tank is walking in the opposite direction.
infinite_array wrote: I was referring more to the combat doctrine of Blitzkrieg - I mean, back in the early parts of the war, German tanks had machine guns and 2cm guns as their main armament.
As we get to the closing of the war, we see stuff like the Tiger, Kingtiger, and the Maus:
Clearly the Germans wanted to investigate into tank technology. Tiger was not build for Blitzkrieg but for heavy support. The Blitzkrieg main tank was Panzer III and Panzer IV. Later they added several more like Stug III. But they also made tanks for Heavy long range support, basically trying to replace AT guns. Those were tanks like Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, Jagdtpanzer and Marauder.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:And the real killer in any major military action is Artillery, more KIA/WIA are caused by that then any other part of the battlefield. Artillery king of battle.
It was until WW2 when it was replaced by air force that could do a lot more damage then artillery ( Dresden anyone? )
Sorry but no. During WW2 artillery had a large presence and effect. Airplanes needed to be fuelled, armed, crews briefed. Then the planes needed to get airborne and time to reach the front lines, during which time their target can have changed or moved. Whilst Divisional artillery can get orders, sight & lay the guns and begin their bombardment. Also artillery bombardments can be sustained for very long periods of time whilst an airplane only carries limited ordnance and is in danger from airborne threats & ground based anti-aircraft fire.
Fighters performing Wild Weasal and other ground attack roles to support an assault help, but they still lack the sustainability of artillery - especially when the planes fuel tanks start to empty.
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:...the Russians had more resources to draw upon if I recall correctly (and weren't suffering as much sabotage such as that the Germans suffered from the French Resistance).
Thanks to the Americans & the Royal Navy getting the supplies to them. A quick pointer on Russia & its manufacturing capabilities from 1919 onwards; from the beginning of the Communist era to post-WW2, Russian manufacturing was based on quota. The Government would demand so much a month for which the factories/quarries/oil fields/farms etc would be paid. Once that quota had been met, they didn't send any extra because they didn't get paid for it. The most telling area for this activity was in the oil industry. During the 20s the new Communist rulers of Russia kicked out the European/Western companies who had been drilling the oil fields, notably in the Baku region. The Russians took over running the oilfields with the kit left behind by the European/Western companies. Problems they faced were that Russian knowledge of modern drilling techniques was limited and the equipment they had was older European/Western kit which, when it broke or malfunctioned was replaced by inefficient and poorly built homemade equipment. Russia currently has an estimated 15% of the worlds natural fossil fuel reserves, the largest amount of those resources in the world. During the 20s, 30s, 40s & early 50s, Russian oil fields drilled oil, let the extra yield/leaks go to waste. They also burnt off the natural gas they found - to them there was no point in dealing with it as they weren't paid for it, so they just fired it off, burning it all. By 1940 the oilfields were in a dreadful state and you can see why Hitlers attention was on the rich, abundant oil fields of Russia - petroleum was a resource Germany was in dire need of.
With such inefficient management it's no wonder the Russians desperately needed the resources the Allies shipped to them and if America hadn't sent 300,000 tons of petroleum then it's doubtful whether the Russian tanks could have advanced during 1945. No they didn't suffer from external sabotage, but internal 'sabotage' caused by the way they went about their manufacturing/mining/drilling/farming processes. [source: Marshal Goldman - Oilopoly]
Well, since we're doing some WWII stuff. It's pretty obvious the Germans had some of the best arms and armor of the war. StG-44, MG-42, the Panther, Me-262, ect.
Fortunately for everyone else, their leader was literally on methamphetamine. Seriously, the guy was prescribed over 90 different medications over the course of the war. The man was already pretty unstable by all accounts, speed was not the answer. Har har. Not to discount the fighting men of any country but Germany lost the war because it overstretched itself. Hitler didn't consolidate his victories at all, always pressing on to new conquests. It's possible he thought his time was limited as he had a myriad of health conditions and it's also probably he was just high as hell and very, very overconfident. It is very likely Germany could have handled any of the war's fronts one by one but it certainly couldn't handle all at once.
Interesting fact about Adolph, he was a vegetarian and staunchly opposed animal abuse.
Unfortunately when Guard get mention there are often parallels drawn between them & real life armies, because they're based on them. It then devolves slowly into RL tanks compared to 40k tanks and then goes down to the inevitable T-34 vs Panther thing. Seen it before...
yeah early war german tanks were built with a offensive base in mind, bypass encircle and move on, the later german tanks were defensive in design, mobile bunkers, and Hitler's crazed drug induced ideas.
Hans Guderian wanted all german tank production to be the PZ IV, he wanted alot of mediums, instead of a few heavies.
As the russians say.."Quanity has a Quality all its own"
but back on topic, the marines get the glory, the Guard win the wars, they hold the lines , they shatter the emperor's enemies with hammer blows and the dread of inevitable defeat....(stamps foot and sings IG tanker drinking song )
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:And the real killer in any major military action is Artillery, more KIA/WIA are caused by that then any other part of the battlefield. Artillery king of battle.
It was until WW2 when it was replaced by air force that could do a lot more damage then artillery ( Dresden anyone? )
Sorry but no. During WW2 artillery had a large presence and effect. Airplanes needed to be fuelled, armed, crews briefed. Then the planes needed to get airborne and time to reach the front lines, during which time their target can have changed or moved. Whilst Divisional artillery can get orders, sight & lay the guns and begin their bombardment. Also artillery bombardments can be sustained for very long periods of time whilst an airplane only carries limited ordnance and is in danger from airborne threats & ground based anti-aircraft fire.
Fighters performing Wild Weasal and other ground attack roles to support an assault help, but they still lack the sustainability of artillery - especially when the planes fuel tanks start to empty.
That all stands but still:
1) Artillery can't face aviation. This is what usually happenes
2) Artillery can't make the devastation that allies did to Dresden in just 2 days of bombing. ( unles you load artilery with nuclear warheads, but that's another story )
But both have their advantages and weakness. Artillery being able for long range firepower but very slow. Air force for being quite fast and having the element of surprise while it can carry only limited amount of firepower.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote:
Draigo wrote:ww2 tanks = IG not getting credit? um ok
Someone mentioned Russians, and the historical guys ran with it!
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:And the real killer in any major military action is Artillery, more KIA/WIA are caused by that then any other part of the battlefield. Artillery king of battle.
It was until WW2 when it was replaced by air force that could do a lot more damage then artillery ( Dresden anyone? )
Sorry but no. During WW2 artillery had a large presence and effect. Airplanes needed to be fuelled, armed, crews briefed. Then the planes needed to get airborne and time to reach the front lines, during which time their target can have changed or moved. Whilst Divisional artillery can get orders, sight & lay the guns and begin their bombardment. Also artillery bombardments can be sustained for very long periods of time whilst an airplane only carries limited ordnance and is in danger from airborne threats & ground based anti-aircraft fire.
Fighters performing Wild Weasal and other ground attack roles to support an assault help, but they still lack the sustainability of artillery - especially when the planes fuel tanks start to empty.
That all stands but still:
1) Artillery can't face aviation. This is what usually happenes
2) Artillery can't make the devastation that allies did to Dresden in just 2 days of bombing.
But both have their advantages and weakness. Artillery being able for long range firepower but very slow. Air force for being quite fast and having the element of surprise while it can carry only limited amount of firepower.
Dresden is a poor example. It was a city that through 1,200 RAF & US bombers dropping masses of high explosive was wiped off of the map - almost. It had little military significance, did not hinder the German warmachine any more than it already had been. Instead it killed a lot of civilians & obliterated what was a beautiful city.
The clip you posted is from a game, depicting American fighters strafing Flak 36 8.8cm cannons. Allow me to point out the massive flaws;
- The guns are set up so close together only a fool would set them up in a such a way. They also lack any overhead cover or concealment (with woodland either side of them which would have done the trick).
- The guns in that clip are Flak 36 8.8cm AA guns pressed into the anti-tank role. They are not indirect fire artillery. They're also set up stupidly close to the front lines considering they had an effective range of over 2km where they'd still easily punch through the front plate of Shermans
- The crews are all felled by a single pass. That would be an astounding feat of marksmanship. Considering there are four guns, each crewed by 6-8 men, with command elements, around 30-40 men, all killed with a single pass.
The guns for that clip were set up in such a way that it would have the player cheering on the USAAF. Thats all it exists for. It's about as historically accurate as a Vulcan bomber flying in support of Ceasers Legions.
Artillery is not left on its own. In fact it is -never- left on its own. It would be supported by AA guns, SPAAG, fighters and so on. Artillery is important as it delivers massive amounts of suppressing fire accurately & quickly.
How on earth did you come to conclusion that artillery is slow? It's fast and delivers massive amounts of suppressing fire on target, quickly.
Planes, on the other hand, have to be fuelled, armed, the crews knowing where they're going. They've then got to gain height, get to the frontlines, find their target, be careful of anti-aircraft fire and then drop their payloads on the target. They also stand the chance of being shot down/destroyed/having a mechanical fault denting the firepower they could deliver. Planes may also not be available for the job whilst artillery always will be as it travels with the army.
Artillery does not fight aviation......we were discussing casulty inflicting and battlefield effects. and arty usually has AD units or even CAP on it.
Destroying a city is not a especially impressive feat, its just dropping alot of dumb bombs, again talking battlefield effects, not terror bombing.
Aircraft actually have longer range than arty, but much less endurance, but tac air does not really surpise anyone, you can hear them comming alongway away, but again neither here or there.
Arty can shell at many rates of fire, indefintly some with rates of 3-5 rounds a minute for sustained periods, 30 min or so, with cool down, or bring another tube online, the MLRS can destroy a 1km X 1km grid, and kill most everything there, and reload and do it again in 10 -15min
So comparing them is like apples and oranges, each does a job, but its basically different jobs, the only overlap is AOE weapons, use to be Air craft were the premier precision ord paltforms, but with new GPS munitions the arty ( which includes mortars ) can hit a 1mX1m target on a good day, and a slightly larger one on a bad day.
the was for using a computer game clip to show airpower....
Sparks_Havelock wrote:
The clip you posted is from a game, depicting American fighters strafing Flak 36 8.8cm cannons. Allow me to point out the massive flaws;
- The guns are set up so close together only a fool would set them up in a such a way. They also lack any overhead cover or concealment (with woodland either side of them which would have done the trick).
- The guns in that clip are Flak 36 8.8cm AA guns pressed into the anti-tank role. They are not indirect fire artillery. They're also set up stupidly close to the front lines considering they had an effective range of over 2km where they'd still easily punch through the front plate of Shermans
- The crews are all felled by a single pass. That would be an astounding feat of marksmanship. Considering there are four guns, each crewed by 6-8 men, with command elements, around 30-40 men, all killed with a single pass.
The guns for that clip were set up in such a way that it would have the player cheering on the USAAF. Thats all it exists for. It's about as historically accurate as a Vulcan bomber flying in support of Ceasers Legions.
This. I was going to say something, but Sparks beat me to it.
What? Flak 36?
No no no...those are Flak 88 pointed at Hill 331 near Mortain. ( that was build upon accurate shots. Not sure about the planes but the US forces win battle there )
And most airplanes today would destroy any artillery positions that lack AA defense. Because artillery guns are big and they are mostly stationary to fire, they need time to pack and flee while plain can maneuver and take the shot.
Artillery is faster then airplane? This is a new one.
Find me an artillery that can go faster then mach 2 airplane and I will say that I am wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
the was for using a computer game clip to show airpower....
Oh that, I couldn't found any similarity with real life aircraft vs. artillery strafe-run. So I sued that, close enough..
You want me to give an example from Warhammer 40000? The Taros Campaign.
Imperial Guard had the artillery, did it help win the war?
No when Tau had ~120 aircraft and air dominance.
Sparks_Havelock wrote:Dresden is a poor example. It was a city that through 1,200 RAF & US bombers dropping masses of high explosive was wiped off of the map - almost. It had little military significance, did not hinder the German warmachine any more than it already had been. Instead it killed a lot of civilians & obliterated what was a beautiful city.
The clip you posted is from a game, depicting American fighters strafing Flak 36 8.8cm cannons. Allow me to point out the massive flaws;
- The guns are set up so close together only a fool would set them up in a such a way. They also lack any overhead cover or concealment (with woodland either side of them which would have done the trick).
- The guns in that clip are Flak 36 8.8cm AA guns pressed into the anti-tank role. They are not indirect fire artillery. They're also set up stupidly close to the front lines considering they had an effective range of over 2km where they'd still easily punch through the front plate of Shermans
- The crews are all felled by a single pass. That would be an astounding feat of marksmanship. Considering there are four guns, each crewed by 6-8 men, with command elements, around 30-40 men, all killed with a single pass.
The guns for that clip were set up in such a way that it would have the player cheering on the USAAF. Thats all it exists for. It's about as historically accurate as a Vulcan bomber flying in support of Ceasers Legions.
Artillery is not left on its own. In fact it is -never- left on its own. It would be supported by AA guns, SPAAG, fighters and so on. Artillery is important as it delivers massive amounts of suppressing fire accurately & quickly.
How on earth did you come to conclusion that artillery is slow? It's fast and delivers massive amounts of suppressing fire on target, quickly.
Planes, on the other hand, have to be fuelled, armed, the crews knowing where they're going. They've then got to gain height, get to the frontlines, find their target, be careful of anti-aircraft fire and then drop their payloads on the target. They also stand the chance of being shot down/destroyed/having a mechanical fault denting the firepower they could deliver. Planes may also not be available for the job whilst artillery always will be as it travels with the army.
Sparks_Havelock wrote:
Planes, on the other hand, have to be fuelled, armed, the crews knowing where they're going. They've then got to gain height, get to the frontlines, find their target, be careful of anti-aircraft fire and then drop their payloads on the target. They also stand the chance of being shot down/destroyed/having a mechanical fault denting the firepower they could deliver. Planes may also not be available for the job whilst artillery always will be as it travels with the army.
Artillery also had to be deployed, witch takes time to. Much less then aircraft but still air force is more effective.
If you want prof ask Egyptians what Israeli did to them in 6 day war with air force. I am not saying that air force is fast, but it can bring a lot more devastation then artillery today.
Brother Coa wrote:What? Flak 36? No no no...those are Flak 88 pointed at Hill 331 near Mortain. ( that was build upon accurate shots. Not sure about the planes but the US forces win battle there )
And most airplanes today would destroy any artillery positions that lack AA defense. Because artillery guns are big and they are mostly stationary to fire, they need time to pack and flee while plain can maneuver and take the shot.
'Flak 36' is the actual name of the platform - the '8,8' just shows the guns used.
And they're meant for anti-aircraft fire, making the video even more improbable.
And did you just use a 40k example to try and prove a real-life situation? With Tau, no less?
C'mon.
If you want prof ask Egyptians what Israeli did to them in 6 day war with air force. I am not saying that air force is fast, but it can bring a lot more devastation then artillery today.
Ah, I see - you're trying to use current-day knowledge on WWII airplanes.
No no no...those are Flak 88 pointed at Hill 331 near Mortain. ( that was build upon accurate shots. Not sure about the planes but the US forces win battle there )
The Flak 36 is an 8.8cm calibre anti-aircraft gun also known as the 'eighty-eight'/88 which was pressed into the anti-tank role after the Condor Legion had excellent successes with it during the Spanish Civil War. It became a primary role for it after the German army met the British Matilda I & IIC tanks at Arras, as well as having come up against the French Char tanks (such as the B1 BIS). The 8.8cm cannon mounted on to the Mk VI Tiger was an altered version of the Flak 36.
And most airplanes today would destroy any artillery positions that lack AA defense. Because artillery guns are big and they are mostly stationary to fire, they need time to pack and flee while plain can maneuver and take the shot.
I thought we were discussing WW2 here. If you want to apply modern circumstances then it's a different kettle of fish due to missiles, IR bombs, guidance systems, fire & forget missiles & bombs - it's massively different. Artillery still wouldn't be left to fend for itself. It would have support.
Artillery is faster then airplane? This is a new one.
Find me an artillery that can go faster then mach 2 airplane and I will say that I am wrong.
I was talking about getting fire on to the target not speed in MPH. How long do you think it took them to get planes ready for take off, the pilots briefed, navigators knowing where they're going & bombardiers understanding their targets, getting up in the air, rendezvousing with their fighter escort and getting to the front lines from their bases miles behind the rear lines? Compare that to a sighted artillery battery getting co-ordinates, working out elevations & angles, which they were pretty damned good at and then getting shells on to the target. There was a massive difference. Artillery was also much more reliable - it fired from relative safety, couldn't be 'shot down' or have a mechanical fault that would defeat its chances of getting its payload on target (yes artillery guns can have problems, all machines can, but it's not such a problem as a fighter/bomber having to turn back/ditching).
Brother Coa wrote:What? Flak 36?
No no no...those are Flak 88 pointed at Hill 331 near Mortain. ( that was build upon accurate shots. Not sure about the planes but the US forces win battle there )
And most airplanes today would destroy any artillery positions that lack AA defense. Because artillery guns are big and they are mostly stationary to fire, they need time to pack and flee while plain can maneuver and take the shot.
Artillery is faster then airplane? This is a new one.
Find me an artillery that can go faster then mach 2 airplane and I will say that I am wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
the was for using a computer game clip to show airpower....
Oh that, I couldn't found any similarity with real life aircraft vs. artillery strafe-run. So I sued that, close enough..
You want me to give an example from Warhammer 40000? The Taros Campaign.
Imperial Guard had the artillery, did it help win the war?
No when Tau had ~120 aircraft and air dominance.
m198 155mm shell 826m/s RAP out to 40km so your wrong
Air power is like a policeman or a condom, never one around when you need one, arty is in the fight, you even include it in your basic battleplans, its a reliable steady asset with much fewer variables, king of battle.
Brother Coa wrote:
When looking at WW2 to me the Germans overall had the best tanks in the whole war.
With the Tiger tank, however, it is debatable as to whether or not it was the best tank. It's one thing to suggest that it would take out any other tank in a straight one-on-one, but it to suggest that it was best purely because of that is to approach warfare in a very narrow point of view.
Because of that to me the Germans always had upper hand in tanks in the war.
Only really once the Panther reached the field (and even then, it had mechanical failures. Once they were fixed, you'd have a point, but they definately did not have the best tanks throughout the war. From what I've read, Britain and France had 'better' tanks (in your reasoning) than the Germans at the start, as did the Russians at the start of Operation Barborossa. German Panzers struggled to even penetrate some Russian tanks while hitting them in the rear armour. In fact, I think that's why they started using the Flak 36, an AA gun, against Russian tanks (being one of the few weapons they had that could reliably penetrate them.
Brother Coa wrote:The only reason German superiority tanks were losing was: they destroy one Sherman but the rest 20 of them destroy the Tiger.
I'm not sure how many Sherman variants other than the Firefly had a good chance of actually taking out a Tiger other than at very close range (which would not happen often). I'm pretty sure that anti-guns and possibly self-propelled guns destroyed more Tiger tanks than tanks.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:More tanks of all kinds on all sides were killed by AT-guns,( hence the name ) the Stug III is the leading german self propeled killer outstripping all other types of german armored killers.
This is what I assumed.
infinite_array wrote:It's funny - the Germans, the guys who developed and used the idea of rapid moving tanks, completely moved away from that doctrine to make over-engineered crawling bricks.
Wasn't it due to unfortunate encounters with superior Russian tanks that they decided to develop the heavier tanks?
Sparks_Havelock wrote:Thanks to the Americans & the Royal Navy getting the supplies to them.
Yeah, I know, but I still feel that that counts as more resources to draw upon. It's why I suspect that if either America, Britain or Russia had never been involved in the war that Germany would have been unlikely to be defeated. Although I didn't know how mismanaged Russian resources were, thanks.
Brother Coa wrote:Artillery can't face aviation. This is what usually happenes
Please don't use Company of Heroes as an example, and those were AA guns and as such were not designed as artillery pieces if I recall correctly. And yeah, but that's like saying infantry can't face a machine gun nest (most of the time) and as such are replaced by machine guns. It doesn't work like that.
Artillery can't make the devastation that allies did to Dresden in just 2 days of bombing.
No, but you can't call up a large scale bombing run on short notice. Artillery bombardments can be. That's the major difference.
Have you not heard about what people think with happen to Seoul if another war kicks off between North and South Korea?
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:but back on topic, the marines get the glory, the Guard win the wars, they hold the lines , they shatter the emperor's enemies with hammer blows and the dread of inevitable defeat....(stamps foot and sings IG tanker drinking song )
Well, this is pretty much how it seems to pan out. To be fair, not many of the fan-base refute that though, it's just that Black Library tend to have more books on the Space Marines or some of the more proficient Imperial Guard Regiments.
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:Wasn't it due to unfortunate encounters with superior Russian tanks that they decided to develop the heavier tanks?
They'd laid down plans for a heavier tank prior to the invasion of Poland, but their encounters with British Matilda tanks (I's & IIC's) at Arras & the French Char B1-BIS and the S-35 'SOMUA' tanks during the Battle of France scared the stuffing out of them, making them decide that the only way to compete with these well armoured monsters was through their own big, heavy tank. Meeting the KV1 & KV2 just compounded their need for such a tank.
Sparks_Havelock wrote:
The Flak 36 is an 8.8cm calibre anti-aircraft gun also known as the 'eighty-eight'/88 which was pressed into the anti-tank role after the Condor Legion had excellent successes with it during the Spanish Civil War. It became a primary role for it after the German army met the British Matilda I & IIC tanks at Arras, as well as having come up against the French Char tanks (such as the B1 BIS). The 8.8cm cannon mounted on to the Mk VI Tiger was an altered version of the Flak 36.
Didn't know that, thanks.
I thought we were discussing WW2 here. If you want to apply modern circumstances then it's a different kettle of fish due to missiles, IR bombs, guidance systems, fire & forget missiles & bombs - it's massively different. Artillery still wouldn't be left to fend for itself. It would have support.
We are talking about army's in general, all ages included. I am talking about air force now.
I was talking about getting fire on to the target not speed in MPH. How long do you think it took them to get planes ready for take off, the pilots briefed, navigators knowing where they're going & bombardiers understanding their targets, getting up in the air, rendezvousing with their fighter escort and getting to the front lines from their bases miles behind the rear lines? Compare that to a sighted artillery battery getting co-ordinates, working out elevations & angles, which they were pretty damned good at and then getting shells on to the target. There was a massive difference. Artillery was also much more reliable - it fired from relative safety, couldn't be 'shot down' or have a mechanical fault that would defeat its chances of getting its payload on target (yes artillery guns can have problems, all machines can, but it's not such a problem as a fighter/bomber having to turn back/ditching).
In case of preparations artillery is faster if it's on the field immediately. But airplanes still can deal far grater damage then artillery.
And I was talking in terms on moving artillery around, planes can turn quite fast while stationary and heavy object need time.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: m198 155mm shell 826m/s RAP out to 40km so your wrong
I was talking in terms of actual speed that artillery gun can be moved around by truck and airplane speed in the air. Sorry for disappointing you
Ok <redacted by Moderator>, shall we factor in the airpower spool up time , time of travel from airbase, the mission breifer, and checklist before pilot goes choks up, the arming time or its time on target relay from the ground....
the plane is the delivery platform but it has to be at the target, the artillery delivers its payload from its site.
I shot hundreds of missions and I saw planes in the air maybe 10-15 times, we would have to put artillery on hold to let the birds come in to hit the targets, we waited on them, so the sky would be safe for them, so no stray raty round might clip them, then after they flew off and effects on target were determined we usually went ahead with the Artillery.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Ok doofus, shall we factor in the airpower spool up time , time of travel from airbase, the mission breifer, and checklist before pilot goes choks up, the arming time or its time on target relay from the ground....
the plane is the delivery platform but it has to be at the target, the artillery delivers its payload from its site.
I shot hundreds of missions and I saw planes in the air maybe 10-15 times, we would have to put artillery on hold to let the birds come in to hit the targets, we waited on them, so the sky would be safe for them, so no stray raty round might clip them, then after they flew off and effects on target were determined we usually went ahead with the Artillery.
I know plain need times to take off and all that. But I am saying that even despite all this, aircraft can make far grater damage then artillery even if you fired 1.000.000 times before plane got there.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Ok doofus, shall we factor in the airpower spool up time , time of travel from airbase, the mission breifer, and checklist before pilot goes choks up, the arming time or its time on target relay from the ground....
the plane is the delivery platform but it has to be at the target, the artillery delivers its payload from its site.
I shot hundreds of missions and I saw planes in the air maybe 10-15 times, we would have to put artillery on hold to let the birds come in to hit the targets, we waited on them, so the sky would be safe for them, so no stray raty round might clip them, then after they flew off and effects on target were determined we usually went ahead with the Artillery.
I know plain need times to take off and all that. But I am saying that even despite all this, aircraft can make far grater damage then artillery even if you fired 1.000.000 times before plane got there.
You talk theory, I state facts, first gulf war 100days of air campaign 3-4 days on the ground, Airpower is great awesome stuff, flashy and cool and makes people go oooo ahhhh, but its artillery that wins battles, its still that way , and will be for some time.
(No offence to all my Air force buddies, just trying to shed some light here.)
A standard combat load out for a strike mission company to battalion size is 2 craft element with 2 X500-1000lb smart bombs, they drop and its 30min or more before the same element is back on station. so 2000-4000lbs of bombs on target, sometimes it could be more, but I am speaking from experience.
A 2 gun element of arty during that time can place 90 rounds from each gun with each round being about 100lbs worth of shell, so that equates to 18,000 lbs of shells on target, can be more but again this is based on my experiance and a sustained ROF, and these shells can adapt and follow the movements of the enemy.
Will have some tired gun bunnies though
I believe Coa's problem is that we went from comparing WWII artillery/airplanes to current day airplanes, and he hasn't realized that the 60-70 years or so in avionics advancements have been steadily matched by advancements in artillery as well.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: You talk theory, I state facts, first gulf war 100days of air campaign 3-4 days on the ground, Airpower is great awesome stuff, flashy and cool and makes people go oooo ahhhh, but its artillery that wins battles, its still that way , and will be for some time. (No offence to all my Air force buddies, just trying to shed some light here.)
A standard combat load out for a strike mission company to battalion size is 2 craft element with 2 X500-1000lb smart bombs, they drop and its 30min or more before the same element is back on station. so 2000-4000lbs of bombs on target, sometimes it could be more, but I am speaking from experience.
A 2 gun element of arty during that time can place 90 rounds from each gun with each round being about 100lbs worth of shell, so that equates to 18,000 lbs of shells on target, can be more but again this is based on my experiance and a sustained ROF, and these shells can adapt and follow the movements of the enemy. Will have some tired gun bunnies though
That is all nice that you wrote and I support that. I believe that I also said earlier in this thread that aircraft is taking much less supplies then artillery and I agree with you there. But seeing from modern view air force have grater plea because this is time of highly mobile warfare. Meaning that enemy is also fast and hard to be hit with artillery, but much more easier with airplanes. But Artillery is still good to provide quick fire support and top shell down an enemy town or fortify positions while planes much risk AA fire in there. But let me stake one fact in superiority of air force over artillery in terms of sheer firepower: B-2 Spirit can take 16 TACTICAL NUKES with himself, transfer them across half the planet adn deliver them to the enemy in a matter of hours. Now that's true firepower
Only artillery that I know about that used tactical nukes was Chinese one. And they canceled it because there was no way to fire it and not avoiding the blast itself.
infinite_array wrote:I believe Coa's problem is that we went from comparing WWII artillery/airplanes to current day airplanes, and he hasn't realized that the 60-70 years or so in avionics advancements have been steadily matched by advancements in artillery as well.
Indeed sir ( passes a glass of Port and cigar ) indeed.
infinite_array wrote:I believe Coa's problem is that we went from comparing WWII artillery/airplanes to current day airplanes, and he hasn't realized that the 60-70 years or so in avionics advancements have been steadily matched by advancements in artillery as well.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
You talk theory, I state facts, first gulf war 100days of air campaign 3-4 days on the ground, Airpower is great awesome stuff, flashy and cool and makes people go oooo ahhhh, but its artillery that wins battles, its still that way , and will be for some time.
(No offence to all my Air force buddies, just trying to shed some light here.)
A standard combat load out for a strike mission company to battalion size is 2 craft element with 2 X500-1000lb smart bombs, they drop and its 30min or more before the same element is back on station. so 2000-4000lbs of bombs on target, sometimes it could be more, but I am speaking from experience.
A 2 gun element of arty during that time can place 90 rounds from each gun with each round being about 100lbs worth of shell, so that equates to 18,000 lbs of shells on target, can be more but again this is based on my experiance and a sustained ROF, and these shells can adapt and follow the movements of the enemy.
Will have some tired gun bunnies though
That is all nice that you wrote and I support that. I believe that I also said earlier in this thread that aircraft is taking much less supplies then artillery and I agree with you there.
But seeing from modern view air force have grater plea because this is time of highly mobile warfare. Meaning that enemy is also fast and hard to be hit with artillery, but much more easier with airplanes.
But Artillery is still good to provide quick fire support and top shell down an enemy town or fortify positions while planes much risk AA fire in there.
But let me stake one fact in superiority of air force over artillery in terms of sheer firepower: B-2 Spirit can take 16 TACTICAL NUKES with himself, transfer them across half the planet adn deliver them to the enemy in a matter of hours. Now that's true firepower
Only artillery that I know about that used tactical nukes was Chinese one. And they canceled it because there was no way to fire it and not avoiding the blast itself.
The US military has tac nuke shells for 155mm artillery
TACMS also has tac nuke rounds
and if you want real firepower its not army or airforce, its the navy, Ohio class ballistic nuclear sub 24 tridents with 12 MIRVs 12,000km range.... but thats kinda like arty huh.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
and if you want real firepower its not army or airforce, its the navy, Ohio class ballistic nuclear sub 24 tridents with 12 MIRVs 12,000km range.... but thats kinda like arty huh.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
and if you want real firepower its not army or airforce, its the navy, Ohio class ballistic nuclear sub 24 tridents with 12 MIRVs 12,000km range.... but thats kinda like arty huh.
Can we now please return to 40k?
I am starting to think that Guard is quite powerful taking all we have said here into account.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Brother Coa wrote:
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
and if you want real firepower its not army or airforce, its the navy, Ohio class ballistic nuclear sub 24 tridents with 12 MIRVs 12,000km range.... but thats kinda like arty huh.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
You talk theory, I state facts, first gulf war 100days of air campaign 3-4 days on the ground, Airpower is great awesome stuff, flashy and cool and makes people go oooo ahhhh, but its artillery that wins battles, its still that way , and will be for some time.
(No offence to all my Air force buddies, just trying to shed some light here.)
A standard combat load out for a strike mission company to battalion size is 2 craft element with 2 X500-1000lb smart bombs, they drop and its 30min or more before the same element is back on station. so 2000-4000lbs of bombs on target, sometimes it could be more, but I am speaking from experience.
A 2 gun element of arty during that time can place 90 rounds from each gun with each round being about 100lbs worth of shell, so that equates to 18,000 lbs of shells on target, can be more but again this is based on my experiance and a sustained ROF, and these shells can adapt and follow the movements of the enemy.
Will have some tired gun bunnies though
That is all nice that you wrote and I support that. I believe that I also said earlier in this thread that aircraft is taking much less supplies then artillery and I agree with you there.
But seeing from modern view air force have grater plea because this is time of highly mobile warfare. Meaning that enemy is also fast and hard to be hit with artillery, but much more easier with airplanes.
But Artillery is still good to provide quick fire support and top shell down an enemy town or fortify positions while planes much risk AA fire in there.
But let me stake one fact in superiority of air force over artillery in terms of sheer firepower: B-2 Spirit can take 16 TACTICAL NUKES with himself, transfer them across half the planet adn deliver them to the enemy in a matter of hours. Now that's true firepower
Only artillery that I know about that used tactical nukes was Chinese one. And they canceled it because there was no way to fire it and not avoiding the blast itself.
The US military has tac nuke shells for 155mm artillery
TACMS also has tac nuke rounds
and if you want real firepower its not army or airforce, its the navy, Ohio class ballistic nuclear sub 24 tridents with 12 MIRVs 12,000km range.... but thats kinda like arty huh.
Nope, more like stationary air force missile silos.
Yeah sorry coa man. But the current prototype rail guns we got could never be battlefield implemented. The closest they are to coming to war is a battleship mounted one. And even then it's not worth it...... yet.
Of course the Guard is powerful, it has tanks long range artillery huge formations of infantry, airmobile troops, and even special forces detachments, but the limelight is always occupied by Spacemarines, the poster boy of 40k.
The guard can fight its enemy in a more realistic . logistical , and coherent manner, with out plot armor, and plot hammer, I have always enjoyed the depictions of IG conflicts and found them much more plausible, in a unplausible setting.
But again space marines are 90% of peoples starting armies, and for some its all they ever want, and the IG gets the fecal covered end of the stick many times in the fluff, just to set up the powered armored boys saving of thier butts.
Be nice to see the roles reversed for once, I played in a map based mega campaign where my airmobile IG force parachuted into a city fight to save a spacewolf force that got itself encircled and in danger of being overran by orks ( 2000pts of spacewolves against 6000pts pf Orks)
The mission was a sucess and my IG ended up holding the city even after the space wolves buggered off, held until a armor column arrived and releived my boys. ( Would have made a nice story)
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:Of course the Guard is powerful, it has tanks long range artillery huge formations of infantry, airmobile troops, and even special forces detachments, but the limelight is always occupied by Spacemarines, the poster boy of 40k.
The guard can fight its enemy in a more realistic . logistical , and coherent manner, with out plot armor, and plot hammer, I have always enjoyed the depictions of IG conflicts and found them much more plausible, in a unplausible setting.
But again space marines are 90% of peoples starting armies, and for some its all they ever want, and the IG gets the fecal covered end of the stick many times in the fluff, just to set up the powered armored boys saving of thier butts.
Be nice to see the roles reversed for once, I played in a map based mega campaign where my airmobile IG force parachuted into a city fight to save a spacewolf force that got itself encircled and in danger of being overran by orks ( 2000pts of spacewolves against 6000pts pf Orks)
The mission was a sucess and my IG ended up holding the city even after the space wolves buggered off, held until a armor column arrived and releived my boys. ( Would have made a nice story)
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Be nice to see the roles reversed for once, I played in a map based mega campaign where my airmobile IG force parachuted into a city fight to save a spacewolf force that got itself encircled and in danger of being overran by orks ( 2000pts of spacewolves against 6000pts pf Orks)
The mission was a sucess and my IG ended up holding the city even after the space wolves buggered off, held until a armor column arrived and releived my boys. ( Would have made a nice story)
This story broght a tear to my eye You should totally write down a story on that.
As for Guard I never will understand one thing: how can Imperium lack troops?
They have like millions of Regiments, with all nice toys we numbered here, solid training, solid armament, powerful support.
It is not possible that all Regiments are in some sort of combat and that they can't raise new ones. That is just not logical to me when every nation today can raise most of its's population for war. And Imperium has more then enough.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Be nice to see the roles reversed for once, I played in a map based mega campaign where my airmobile IG force parachuted into a city fight to save a spacewolf force that got itself encircled and in danger of being overran by orks ( 2000pts of spacewolves against 6000pts pf Orks)
The mission was a sucess and my IG ended up holding the city even after the space wolves buggered off, held until a armor column arrived and releived my boys. ( Would have made a nice story)
This story broght a tear to my eye You should totally write down a story on that.
As for Guard I never will understand one thing: how can Imperium lack troops?
They have like millions of Regiments, with all nice toys we numbered here, solid training, solid armament, powerful support.
It is not possible that all Regiments are in some sort of combat and that they can't raise new ones. That is just not logical to me when every nation today can raise most of its's population for war. And Imperium has more then enough.
Its due to the inconsistant fluff that permeates 40k, the IoM is damned by its own size, its why some regiments have all kinds of equipment and another has hatchets and lasguns with feathers on them, part and parcel of the grimdarkness.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Be nice to see the roles reversed for once, I played in a map based mega campaign where my airmobile IG force parachuted into a city fight to save a spacewolf force that got itself encircled and in danger of being overran by orks ( 2000pts of spacewolves against 6000pts pf Orks)
The mission was a sucess and my IG ended up holding the city even after the space wolves buggered off, held until a armor column arrived and releived my boys. ( Would have made a nice story)
This story broght a tear to my eye You should totally write down a story on that.
As for Guard I never will understand one thing: how can Imperium lack troops?
They have like millions of Regiments, with all nice toys we numbered here, solid training, solid armament, powerful support.
It is not possible that all Regiments are in some sort of combat and that they can't raise new ones. That is just not logical to me when every nation today can raise most of its's population for war. And Imperium has more then enough.
Its due to the inconsistant fluff that permeates 40k, the IoM is damned by its own size, its why some regiments have all kinds of equipment and another has hatchets and lasguns with feathers on them, part and parcel of the grimdarkness.
I think that is more of a local need. Customization made to fit the immediate desire.
The catachans don't need trench coats and gas masks like the DKoK.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: Its due to the inconsistant fluff that permeates 40k, the IoM is damned by its own size, its why some regiments have all kinds of equipment and another has hatchets and lasguns with feathers on them, part and parcel of the grimdarkness.
Exactly. One of my favorite 40k stories is Straight Silver - one of the Gaunt's Ghost novels. Here we are, the audience, all used to the regular asymmetrical warfare that the Ghosts have been dealing with, and then we're dropped into a WWI-inspired trench fight with guys who actually have bolt-action lasguns!
Draigo wrote:
Now be fair everyone would look more serious and ba if they looked like the DKoK.
Even more if they acted like them. Nuking your own planet to prove your loyalty, then repaying that in blood.
They are the true example of Emperor's loyal Guardsman.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Be nice to see the roles reversed for once, I played in a map based mega campaign where my airmobile IG force parachuted into a city fight to save a spacewolf force that got itself encircled and in danger of being overran by orks ( 2000pts of spacewolves against 6000pts pf Orks)
The mission was a sucess and my IG ended up holding the city even after the space wolves buggered off, held until a armor column arrived and releived my boys. ( Would have made a nice story)
This story broght a tear to my eye You should totally write down a story on that.
As for Guard I never will understand one thing: how can Imperium lack troops?
They have like millions of Regiments, with all nice toys we numbered here, solid training, solid armament, powerful support.
It is not possible that all Regiments are in some sort of combat and that they can't raise new ones. That is just not logical to me when every nation today can raise most of its's population for war. And Imperium has more then enough.
Ability to raise troops and ability to get troops where they're needed are different things. Transporting millions (billions?) of men is hard enough on one planet, imagine the logistics required to transport them half way across the galaxy. All those men, all those supporting staff, all needing 3000 calories of food every day, with plenty of high-quality protein as well.
well when you are undergoing a MEB for wounds sustained in combat, you don't have alot else to do, although it seems you airforce guys have plenty of time to post on the computer too
But this hobby is a life saver, much better than staring at the TV or playing x-box incessently.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:The guard can fight its enemy in a more realistic . logistical , and coherent manner, with out plot armor, and plot hammer, I have always enjoyed the depictions of IG conflicts and found them much more plausible, in a unplausible setting.
But again space marines are 90% of peoples starting armies, and for some its all they ever want, and the IG gets the fecal covered end of the stick many times in the fluff, just to set up the powered armored boys saving of thier butts.
The inherent problem of the Imperial Guard is not its armory or the will of its soldiers. The thing that ends up dooming Imperial Guard deployments is politics, several layers of fething politics and social/political grandstanding it almost makes me want to garrotte a Space Marine. Not only are they affected by the local politics, but system wide politics, and the Segmentum Commands politics, not to mention the Munitorum, Mechanicus, and Ecclesiarchy. They're even affected by the politics of the Space Marines and Terra itself.
Generals either never get the right amount of supplies or the desired support because of their standing within the gargantuan political system of the Imperium of Man. Look at Taros; the poor General didn't get all the troops he wanted and practically had to use every favor to get a squad of Warhound Titan's from the Fabricator General; and then the Raptors Space Marine Chapter wouldn't even help him in keeping supply convoy's safe from Tau ambushes. And then on top of that he gets executed for losing. I mean its literally damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But nothing is more stirring than an Imperial Guard Regiment mobilizing to battle the enemy. Of course, Shas'el O'shirada will have none of it, but the Guard are determined little buggers.
I also have the Elysian itch and want to create an airborne Regiment that establishes a 'defensive perimeter' ahead of the main advance with Sentry Turrets and Tauros Vehicles dropped beside the infantry.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:well when you are undergoing a MEB for wounds sustained in combat, you don't have alot else to do, although it seems you airforce guys have plenty of time to post on the computer too
But this hobby is a life saver, much better than staring at the TV or playing x-box incessently.
Hey! You leave the XBOX out of this! How else do I get my skyrim fix!?
The gaunts ghosts novels mention the heavy infantry which don't get much attention. My favorite is the regiment they become close allies with, that have heavy armor made of scales that can flip into mirror armour that makes them nearly invisible.
blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Why are we talking about Russians?
Simply put, as many have said before:
The IG = The hammer of the imperium
It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
Because that's essentially Soviet WWII tactics. I mean, we're talking about the country that had such military gems like sending men into battle without a weapon with the orders to 'pick one up as they go' and having guys with submachine guns on your side that'll shoot you if you don't go towards the other guys with guns that were shooting at you.
"Comrade-Captain! German tanks are approaching, and we have no anti-tank weaponry!"
"We shall stop their treads with the bodies of our men, and take their tanks for our own. Forward!"
"Comrade-Captain! German machine gunners have our men pinned down!"
"We have more bodies and courage than they have bullets. Forward!"
Comrade-Captain! The Germans are coming, and our artillery is out of ammunition!"
"Our soldiers have strong hearts and heads! Load our men into the cannons! Forward!"
...Ok, that last bit may be hyperbole. But you get the idea.
I love the Russians during WWII. It's a good thing they were around, or else Hitler probably would have slapped the Allies right back out of France.
I should have made that connection... A little too obvious for me to pick out....
I like guardsmen, they do their job and their pretty reliable. Allows for people to really relate to the universe, because lets face it, not everyone's a genetically enhanced super giant...
blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Why are we talking about Russians?
Simply put, as many have said before:
The IG = The hammer of the imperium
It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
Because that's essentially Soviet WWII tactics. I mean, we're talking about the country that had such military gems like sending men into battle without a weapon with the orders to 'pick one up as they go' and having guys with submachine guns on your side that'll shoot you if you don't go towards the other guys with guns that were shooting at you.
"Comrade-Captain! German tanks are approaching, and we have no anti-tank weaponry!"
"We shall stop their treads with the bodies of our men, and take their tanks for our own. Forward!"
"Comrade-Captain! German machine gunners have our men pinned down!"
"We have more bodies and courage than they have bullets. Forward!"
Comrade-Captain! The Germans are coming, and our artillery is out of ammunition!"
"Our soldiers have strong hearts and heads! Load our men into the cannons! Forward!"
...Ok, that last bit may be hyperbole. But you get the idea.
I love the Russians during WWII. It's a good thing they were around, or else Hitler probably would have slapped the Allies right back out of France.
I should have made that connection... A little too obvious for me to pick out....
I like guardsmen, they do their job and their pretty reliable. Allows for people to really relate to the universe, because lets face it, not everyone's a genetically enhanced super giant...
Says who? In my neck of the woods just being 6'6 make me look like a genetically enhanced super giant. Most my buddies on base a little guys.
blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Why are we talking about Russians?
Simply put, as many have said before:
The IG = The hammer of the imperium
It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
Because that's essentially Soviet WWII tactics. I mean, we're talking about the country that had such military gems like sending men into battle without a weapon with the orders to 'pick one up as they go' and having guys with submachine guns on your side that'll shoot you if you don't go towards the other guys with guns that were shooting at you.
"Comrade-Captain! German tanks are approaching, and we have no anti-tank weaponry!"
"We shall stop their treads with the bodies of our men, and take their tanks for our own. Forward!"
"Comrade-Captain! German machine gunners have our men pinned down!"
"We have more bodies and courage than they have bullets. Forward!"
Comrade-Captain! The Germans are coming, and our artillery is out of ammunition!"
"Our soldiers have strong hearts and heads! Load our men into the cannons! Forward!"
...Ok, that last bit may be hyperbole. But you get the idea.
I love the Russians during WWII. It's a good thing they were around, or else Hitler probably would have slapped the Allies right back out of France.
I should have made that connection... A little too obvious for me to pick out....
I like guardsmen, they do their job and their pretty reliable. Allows for people to really relate to the universe, because lets face it, not everyone's a genetically enhanced super giant...
Do you realise that the Russians were every bit as bad as the Germans? I realise that their aid was necessary to defeat the Nazis but they performed equaly as many if not more crimes against humanity than the Nazis. (In-fact both the Japanese and the russians were worse than the Germans)
ChocolateGork wrote:
Do you realise that the Russians were every bit as bad as the Germans? I realise that their aid was necessary to defeat the Nazis but they performed equaly as many if not more crimes against humanity than the Nazis. (In-fact both the Japanese and the russians were worse than the Germans)
Oh yeah - the Nazi's genocide killed about 6 million people, while I think the Soviet Union killed around 15 million. Crazy when you think about it, huh?
ChocolateGork wrote:
Do you realise that the Russians were every bit as bad as the Germans? I realise that their aid was necessary to defeat the Nazis but they performed equaly as many if not more crimes against humanity than the Nazis. (In-fact both the Japanese and the russians were worse than the Germans)
Oh yeah - the Nazi's genocide killed about 6 million people, while I think the Soviet Union killed around 15 million. Crazy when you think about it, huh?
Only Germans and Japanese had committed genocides in WW2.
For all your information, Soviet Union lost 22 million people in WW2, 2 million of those were solders rest was civilians who died in bombardment, conflict or prisons.
And in war everyone were bad, even Americans. Just remember "Saving Private Ryan" scene at the Normandy after they defeat the Germans. German solders want to surrender, the two G.I's just laughed and shot them down. Everyone is doing crimes in it's own way.
Soviet Union lost over 8 million soldiers at the last check. Germans lost over 4.3 million on the Eastern Front alone and 900,000 from Axis countries. Total dead from the Russia rose above 26 million including civilians.
Russians committed genocide before, during & after the war. The purge of the army in the late 30s, the 'commune' farms that were more like prison labour camps, they wiped out groups of Poles when they invaded & occupied part of Poland in 1939-1940 (Katyn Massacre), they executed prisoners during the war and many prisoners died after the war in captivity, held in camps long after the war had ended.
Chaps, I came back to this thread and saw how it'd moved back to 40k and I was impressed how smoothly that had happened. Now it seems to be ebbing back to WW2 again. Is this going to be the natural progression for this thread?
I agree, let's get back to Guard.
Now, Imperial Gaurd should get more credit. But as long as Space Marines are In spotlight the Guard will be used as cannon fodder.
not some, but the majority of German tanks were superior to the allied ones. the Panze ausf IV was superior armour and the capability of the same speed. There were only 2 true tanks capable of killing the tiger at range: the sherman Firefly with the 17pdr main gun, and the T34/85 I believe. the man who designed the Sherman was a fool. he thought that tanks shouldnt be able to kill other tanks and that armour was over-rated
Automatically Appended Next Post: but I digress, the IG rely on massed fire and manpower to win the day. The phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind
xXSir MontyXx wrote:Its hard to return fire when you have millions of lasers flying at your forces. And heavy artillery pumbeling your positions
Unless you have any of the following attributes:
1. A carapace as a hard as adamantium and quadrillions ready to take your place should you fall.
2. Iridium armor and godlike firepower which can vaporise whole squads instantly. And your own artillery which can destroy super heavy tanks.
3. A body made of self-repairing living metal which can survive the strike from a deathstrike missile only to crawl back together. And Tesla-weapons which can one-shot platoons.
4. Experience from 10 000 years of warfare and blessed with the power of otherworldy creatures.
5. You feel no pain, do not care about anything else than fighting and have countless friends at your side shooting ridiculous amounts of projectiles in the air.
6. You have been trained for decades and you have weapons millions of years ahead the enemy's technology.
7. You have things which cause fear and pain just to look at.
And besides, not every guard force out there has millions of troopers or heavy vehicles. Most only have limited amount (if any) armored support and just a few thousand men.
blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Why are we talking about Russians?
Simply put, as many have said before:
The IG = The hammer of the imperium
It's not pretty and many of them die, but they get the job done, most of the time.
Because that's essentially Soviet WWII tactics. I mean, we're talking about the country that had such military gems like sending men into battle without a weapon with the orders to 'pick one up as they go' and having guys with submachine guns on your side that'll shoot you if you don't go towards the other guys with guns that were shooting at you.
"Comrade-Captain! German tanks are approaching, and we have no anti-tank weaponry!"
"We shall stop their treads with the bodies of our men, and take their tanks for our own. Forward!"
"Comrade-Captain! German machine gunners have our men pinned down!"
"We have more bodies and courage than they have bullets. Forward!"
Comrade-Captain! The Germans are coming, and our artillery is out of ammunition!"
"Our soldiers have strong hearts and heads! Load our men into the cannons! Forward!"
...Ok, that last bit may be hyperbole. But you get the idea.
I love the Russians during WWII. It's a good thing they were around, or else Hitler probably would have slapped the Allies right back out of France.
I should have made that connection... A little too obvious for me to pick out....
I like guardsmen, they do their job and their pretty reliable. Allows for people to really relate to the universe, because lets face it, not everyone's a genetically enhanced super giant...
Do you realise that the Russians were every bit as bad as the Germans? I realise that their aid was necessary to defeat the Nazis but they performed equaly as many if not more crimes against humanity than the Nazis. (In-fact both the Japanese and the russians were worse than the Germans)
But they're still less villainous than the Germans, because their reasons were comprehensible, if deplorable. The Nazis were motivated primarily by gibbering lunacy. It's like how Ted Bundy is a more villainous figure than Al Capone.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
But they're still less villainous than the Germans, because their reasons were comprehensible, if deplorable. The Nazis were motivated primarily by gibbering lunacy.
Just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean that they're insane. It's like saying that the Imperium is mad because it has a hatred of all xenos. Just because most people nowadays (in the West) would disagree with it doesn't mean that they don't have logical reasons for their actions and feelings.
ChocolateGork wrote:Without the IG the imperium could not survive,
Without the Space Marines and a healthy jack up of conscription rates then the imperium would have a chance of surviving,
(And in a war the IG would win)
I don't know, there are some scenarios that SM would work a lot better in than a crap tonne of IG. What about corruption amongst it's ranks? What about Tau "peace" talks? Superior firepower is great! But only if you're the one weilding it, it REAAALLY sucks if it's turned around and pointed at you
ChocolateGork wrote:Without the IG the imperium could not survive,
Without the Space Marines and a healthy jack up of conscription rates then the imperium would have a chance of surviving,
(And in a war the IG would win)
I like imperial guard more but no, the imperium would die without space marines. Especially since it was the legions that were the backbone of the great crusade.
But yes you are right, if the IG faced off against the SM in a massive battle. The IG would take it hands down. There's just so many of those guys.
ChocolateGork wrote:Without the IG the imperium could not survive,
Without the Space Marines and a healthy jack up of conscription rates then the imperium would have a chance of surviving,
(And in a war the IG would win)
I like imperial guard more but no, the imperium would die without space marines. Especially since it was the legions that were the backbone of the great crusade.
But yes you are right, if the IG faced off against the SM in a massive battle. The IG would take it hands down. There's just so many of those guys.
Yeah but in the crusade there were 20x more space marines. There role in the crusade has nothing to do with the imperiums capabilities ten thousand years later.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
But they're still less villainous than the Germans, because their reasons were comprehensible, if deplorable. The Nazis were motivated primarily by gibbering lunacy.
Just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean that they're insane. It's like saying that the Imperium is mad because it has a hatred of all xenos. Just because most people nowadays (in the West) would disagree with it doesn't mean that they don't have logical reasons for their actions and feelings.
I agree. Propaganda works, people are stupid and easily brainwashed and the only EVIL people are the few higher ups of each faction.
The 30s in Russian saw over 1 million people executed and 10 million excess deaths. The Russians were very happy to help Germany invade parts of east Europe and commited just us many atrocities against the people of those countries as the Germans did.
The crazy amount of russians deaths in the war can partly be attributed to stalins paranoia and the executions of nearly all competent commanders .
And i would argue that the Russian march into and occupation of Germany and its cities and the crimes commited during this march and occupation more than made up for the German invasion. That's not to say the german invasion wasn't wrong. BUT the soviets got retribution far before they left.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrainDeleted wrote:Except that they basically built the Imperium?
Not really. They conquered planets (later on with help from the imperial army.) and the lesser humans held the empire together.
ChocolateGork wrote:Without the IG the imperium could not survive,
Without the Space Marines and a healthy jack up of conscription rates then the imperium would have a chance of surviving,
(And in a war the IG would win)
I like imperial guard more but no, the imperium would die without space marines. Especially since it was the legions that were the backbone of the great crusade.
But yes you are right, if the IG faced off against the SM in a massive battle. The IG would take it hands down. There's just so many of those guys.
I agree. Not to mention the huge morale loss if all Space Marines were killed. They are pretty much the incarnation of the Emperor, and whenever thay appear, all forces (including IG) think that victory is assured.
Both the IG and Marines are vital for the Imperium. IG is the one who keeps the wall upright, and Space Marines are the ones who run around and fix all the cracks in its surface.
And IG is also respected more than one would think. It is considered a great honor to be conscripted into it, and the civilian population hails them as heroes. Marines on the other hand are nothing short of legends to ordinary people. They are believed to be the sons of the Emperor, and they are hold in a special position. It is a foregone conclusion that when they appear they will win, so at least civilians notice the bravery and sacrifice of the Imperial Guard. It is just much more encouraging to hear news about "demigods who defeated the whole Dark Eldar raid without a single casualty", than it is to hear about "thousands dead so the raid could be driven back".
And a war like that would never happen. If it would, the Imperium would be doomed.
ChocolateGork wrote:Without the IG the imperium could not survive,
Without the Space Marines and a healthy jack up of conscription rates then the imperium would have a chance of surviving,
(And in a war the IG would win)
I like imperial guard more but no, the imperium would die without space marines. Especially since it was the legions that were the backbone of the great crusade.
But yes you are right, if the IG faced off against the SM in a massive battle. The IG would take it hands down. There's just so many of those guys.
I agree. Not to mention the huge morale loss if all Space Marines were killed. They are pretty much the incarnation of the Emperor, and whenever thay appear, all forces (including IG) think that victory is assured.
Both the IG and Marines are vital for the Imperium. IG is the one who keeps the wall upright, and Space Marines are the ones who run around and fix all the cracks in its surface.
And IG is also respected more than one would think. It is considered a great honor to be conscripted into it, and the civilian population hails them as heroes. Marines on the other hand are nothing short of legends to ordinary people. They are believed to be the sons of the Emperor, and they are hold in a special position. It is a foregone conclusion that when they appear they will win, so at least civilians notice the bravery and sacrifice of the Imperial Guard. It is just much more encouraging to hear news about "demigods who defeated the whole Dark Eldar raid without a single casualty", than it is to hear about "thousands dead so the raid could be driven back".
And a war like that would never happen. If it would, the Imperium would be doomed.
Well ofcourse the war would never happen. Purely hypothetical, it doesn't even have to happen to know the results.
ChocolateGork wrote:Without the IG the imperium could not survive,
Without the Space Marines and a healthy jack up of conscription rates then the imperium would have a chance of surviving,
(And in a war the IG would win)
I like imperial guard more but no, the imperium would die without space marines. Especially since it was the legions that were the backbone of the great crusade.
But yes you are right, if the IG faced off against the SM in a massive battle. The IG would take it hands down. There's just so many of those guys.
Yeah but in the crusade there were 20x more space marines. There role in the crusade has nothing to do with the imperiums capabilities ten thousand years later.
It's not so much that there were more of them, but that they were actually fielded in appreciable numbers in any given theater, instead of scattered about the Imperium as effectively independent states unto themselves, each without the numbers or firepower to actually accomplish anything. Not that all together they'd hold a candle to the Guard now, since the effective equivalent of every last loyalist marine gathered in one place would be under twelve million Guardsmen, about 70% of the Guard presence at Macragge, and a tenth of the annual recruitment of Armageddon.
Space Marines only ever win in the fluff because they're Mary-Sue action heroes. Without that they'd end up like the SoB do in every last engagement. Tiny numbers of heavily armored soldiers with effectively no ammo reserves or supply lines once in the field, who don't the meaning of "retreat" simply don't work when they're not even more heavily armored with plot armor, and it certainly doesn't help that their entire knowledge of strategy and tactics comes from a book that was explicitly written to hamstring them so that they couldn't threaten the Imperium again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
But they're still less villainous than the Germans, because their reasons were comprehensible, if deplorable. The Nazis were motivated primarily by gibbering lunacy.
Just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean that they're insane. It's like saying that the Imperium is mad because it has a hatred of all xenos. Just because most people nowadays (in the West) would disagree with it doesn't mean that they don't have logical reasons for their actions and feelings.
The Nazis weren't insane, but their overarching ideology and goals were, primarily. Their early strategic decisions were reasonable, if ultimately ill-fated, though the same cannot be said later, as they seem to have lost all touch with reality once things started to turn against them, when they may still have had a chance to turn things around, or grind the whole war to a bloody enough stalemate that they'd escape with their lives.
Maccrage was plot armour 100%. Any huge scale battle for space marines is plot armour, there simply aren't enough of them. However operations like Helgate are more than possible.
The part about the 1st company being wiped out to a man defending the Northern fortresses was qutie belieavable. And it did buy time for the fleets to defeat the tyranids in space. They also didn't attribute the main victory in space to entirely to the Ultramarines. That was won in the end because an emperor battleship self detonated its warp drives in the heart of the hive fleet Behemoth.
That's the thing though. Its described as a few survivors inside the fortress being lktteraly flooded by Tyranid. I'm sorry but I don't care if you are a terminator. That is a lot of claws and scythes hitting you every second.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:Maccrage was plot armour 100%. Any huge scale battle for space marines is plot armour, there simply aren't enough of them. However operations like Helgate are more than possible.
So its less believable that super soldiers survive crazy battles but its perfectly acceptable that IG with crap armor and a laspistol can surive? Really? Come on now that a bit of a farce. Creed is involved as much silliness as sm characters. Plot armor saves all the hero types IG included. Otherwise IGs guns would actually run out of ammo and not have that batman back pocket where they pull stuff out their ass.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:That's the thing though. Its described as a few survivors inside the fortress being lktteraly flooded by Tyranid. I'm sorry but I don't care if you are a terminator. That is a lot of claws and scythes hitting you every second.
Unless my memory serves me wrong, the entire 1st company, which had a lot of terminators, were killed to the last man defending the Northen fortresses. There were zero survivers. When they revisited the Northern fortresses, they had to fight their way back in and in the last room, a whole ring of Termis lay dead. They had died fighting back to back to the last man.
And if I remember er correctly there were said to be 2 terminal.actors I think of was. Yes one polar fortress was wiped out but the other had survivors.
And also yes I do believe IG would survive, with their OK weapons and armour because there are hundreds of millions in a single battle. How is that hard to believe? 1000 super soldiers not surviving but in another case 756,345,282 IG units do survive...... hmmm
There weren't survivors. They died back to back, fighting to the last. That's why they were killed to a man because every member of the 1st company defending the north polar fortress (Santa Claus?) died. The other fortress held out, barely.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:Maccrage was plot armour 100%. Any huge scale battle for space marines is plot armour, there simply aren't enough of them. However operations like Helgate are more than possible.
So its less believable that super soldiers survive crazy battles but its perfectly acceptable that IG with crap armor and a laspistol can surive? Really? Come on now that a bit of a farce. Creed is involved as much silliness as sm characters. Plot armor saves all the hero types IG included. Otherwise IGs guns would actually run out of ammo and not have that batman back pocket where they pull stuff out their ass.
One Space Marine is canonically worth twelve Guardsmen. Space Marines take to the field in the dozens or low hundreds, Guardsmen do so in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:Maccrage was plot armour 100%. Any huge scale battle for space marines is plot armour, there simply aren't enough of them. However operations like Helgate are more than possible.
So its less believable that super soldiers survive crazy battles but its perfectly acceptable that IG with crap armor and a laspistol can surive? Really? Come on now that a bit of a farce. Creed is involved as much silliness as sm characters. Plot armor saves all the hero types IG included. Otherwise IGs guns would actually run out of ammo and not have that batman back pocket where they pull stuff out their ass.
One Space Marine is canonically worth twelve Guardsmen. Space Marines take to the field in the dozens or low hundreds, Guardsmen do so in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
Blood Ravens destroyed Hive Fleet, killed Ork Warboss and his WARGHH and killed an Eldar Farseer and her warhoust + Avatar with what? One Regiment of Imperial Guard ( that was tied to the max and send only veterans into the final battle ) and a detachment of Space Marines with some scouts. Plot armor is dong miracles.
xXSir MontyXx wrote:Maccrage was plot armour 100%. Any huge scale battle for space marines is plot armour, there simply aren't enough of them. However operations like Helgate are more than possible.
So its less believable that super soldiers survive crazy battles but its perfectly acceptable that IG with crap armor and a laspistol can surive? Really? Come on now that a bit of a farce. Creed is involved as much silliness as sm characters. Plot armor saves all the hero types IG included. Otherwise IGs guns would actually run out of ammo and not have that batman back pocket where they pull stuff out their ass.
One Space Marine is canonically worth twelve Guardsmen. Space Marines take to the field in the dozens or low hundreds, Guardsmen do so in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
Blood Ravens destroyed Hive Fleet, killed Ork Warboss and his WARGHH and killed an Eldar Farseer and her warhoust + Avatar with what?
One Regiment of Imperial Guard ( that was tied to the max and send only veterans into the final battle ) and a detachment of Space Marines with some scouts.
Plot armor is dong miracles.
That was a video game, of course the Blood Ravens whooped ass. You were playing as them. It'd be a pretty fail game if the player was forced to lose by constraints of the fluff. It's the same reason we don't see Greater Daemons obliterating armies or Doom Scythes driving people insane on the tabletop. The fluff gets castrated in order to provide a suitable gaming experience.
Regardless, all things given fluff wise, I find the 12 Guardsmen = 1 Space Marine thing way too low a trade off by any stretch of the imagination.
OMG your right thousands of crap armor and crap guns makes it so much more believeable! Man how could it not make more sense that IG should get more credit. I mean wow they can die in droves instead of 3 sm. Whoever sheds the most blood isnt the MVP IG fans. Easier to belive a super soldier can survive throughout an entire nid invasion as opposed to your Ripleys. Its called fluff armor people. Your 1ks or millions die faceless in books but you know the entire squad of marines hence why you can't kill them off as fast. No different then movie, books or any other form of entertainment. IG heroes have the fluff armor of gods. I mean by now people would know commisars are asshats so the commisar is lucky he doesnt get shot by his own men.
Dytalus wrote: That was a video game, of course the Blood Ravens whooped ass.
It still counts as a canon, unforgettably - Fire Warrior count to. Point is that Space Marine vary fro author to author so we can't say for sure that they are worth as 12 ordinary solders. For example you have Marine that can die from sword and miss Carnifex with missile launcher, on the other have you have marine that can kill entire army with his trusty gun and marine who is so awesome that he can go around the Warp and kill Chaos Daemons with ease. Same for Guard. MIllions of them die regularly ans most don't do anything. Then you have one Regiment that can kick out Sisters of Battle + Astartes + Tau + Orks + Necrons + Chaos...out of their planetary system, and guys like Marbo who literally eat Chaos Space Marines for launch.
Draigo wrote:OMG your right thousands of crap armor and crap guns makes it so much more believeable! Man how could it not make more sense that IG should get more credit. I mean wow they can die in droves instead of 3 sm. Whoever sheds the most blood isnt the MVP IG fans. Easier to belive a super soldier can survive throughout an entire nid invasion as opposed to your Ripleys. Its called fluff armor people. Your 1ks or millions die faceless in books but you know the entire squad of marines hence why you can't kill them off as fast. No different then movie, books or any other form of entertainment. IG heroes have the fluff armor of gods. I mean by now people would know commisars are asshats so the commisar is lucky he doesnt get shot by his own men.
I think you misconstrued what I meant (or I'm misunderstanding you). I never stated Marines are indestructible, in fact I'd be one of the first to state they're anything but. However, ignoring events of plot armour and stories of battles from Codexes and BL books (which, no matter who is the character(s) involved, plot armour will save them, be they IG or SM) and just going by the fluff of their training and equipment a single Marine is well capable of handling more than 12 Guardsmen. A lasgun is barely going to scorch Power Armour, even if there are twelve of them shooting. Meanwhile, the marine is pelting each Guard with explosive bullets with far greater accuracy against armour that may as well be paper to the boltgun.
However, in an open field battle, Marines would be flattened. They aren't meant to work that way, Guard are. All the skill and ceramite/adamantium/whatever-it-is won't save a Marine squad when there's thrirty ordnance shells landing every second and there are thousands of laser bolts flying at your face. But, of course, if the Marines engage in open war with the Guard on an open field, they deserve to die. It'd not what they are designed for, and they have the tactical knowledge to not go toe to toe with the Guard. They'd drop pod behind Guard lines and carve up their command platoons, or lure them into tactically advantageous areas. Marines are more maneuverable than Guard, are better trained and better equipped man to man. They'll use that to their advantage. To pretend otherwise is to give assume the Guard are fighting to their full extent and the Marines are not, which doesn't set a level playing field for comparing the two.
Brother Coa wrote:
Dytalus wrote:
That was a video game, of course the Blood Ravens whooped ass.
It still counts as a canon, unforgettably - Fire Warrior count to.
Point is that Space Marine vary fro author to author so we can't say for sure that they are worth as 12 ordinary solders.
For example you have Marine that can die from sword and miss Carnifex with missile launcher, on the other have you have marine that can kill entire army with his trusty gun and marine who is so awesome that he can go around the Warp and kill Chaos Daemons with ease.
Same for Guard. MIllions of them die regularly ans most don't do anything. Then you have one Regiment that can kick out Sisters of Battle + Astartes + Tau + Orks + Necrons + Chaos...out of their planetary system, and guys like Marbo who literally eat Chaos Space Marines for launch.
Problem with that assumption is, if you play as the Eldar, suddenly they whoop Blood Raven ass. And is it really that hard to believe some Marines are better fighters than others? One guy could be an amazing shot, another could be incapable of hitting a trygon at ten paces.
Dytalus wrote:A lasgun is barely going to scorch Power Armour, even if there are twelve of them shooting. Meanwhile, the marine is pelting each Guard with explosive bullets with far greater accuracy against armour that may as well be paper to the boltgun.
I beg to differ on that one. Las weapons fire a beam in a straight, uninterrupted line. Bolt rounds are influenced by wind & barometric pressure much like real bullets are. They might be self-propelled but they still obey the laws of physics for ballistic projectiles. Also 12 lasguns firing at power armour -will- damage the armour & even penetrate. If a laspistol can cut a mans arm off, then combined, the explosions from las weapons hitting plate will cause it to rupture and buckle beneath the strain. If the Marine is being 'heroic' and not wearing his helm then a single lasgun can blow his head apart.
Also various las weapons fire at different power settings. Some, such as the Triplex lasgun, can exchange energy in its powerpack for more powerful shots. Krieg No. 98 Lucius Pattern lasguns fire at a permanently higher power setting which, whilst reducing the rate of fire & amount of shots they can get off from a single power pack, hits a lot harder than a standard Mars or Necromunda pattern las weapon. 12 Korpsmen will bring down a single Marine with their las weapons or bayonet him to death with their long blades*.
*In the Krieg army list all Korpsmen are at least WS4, equal to Marines or Eldar in terms of skill & capability because of the emphasis Krieg places on close-quarter combat with bayonets.
Dytalus wrote:
Problem with that assumption is, if you play as the Eldar, suddenly they whoop Blood Raven ass. And is it really that hard to believe some Marines are better fighters than others? One guy could be an amazing shot, another could be incapable of hitting a trygon at ten paces.
I'm not sure which version you're talking about, but in Dawn of War II at least, officially the Blood Ravens won. Not sure about the expansions. Some Marines are better fighters than others, but they are all very good shots from training, natural talent and technology.
Sparks_Havelock wrote:Also 12 lasguns firing at power armour -will- damage the armour & even penetrate.
Depends on the source you read. The accuracy of the Guardsmen is likely to be less than that of an Astartes due to training and experience. A Guardsmen might panic or be unable to properly aim his gun due to adrenaline or whatever. An Astartes is stabilised by his armour. The Astartes is also likely to fire first due to having quicker reactions as well as being a better shot on the move.
Open field I'd bet on one Astartes over twelve ordinary Guardsmen.
Dytalus wrote:A lasgun is barely going to scorch Power Armour, even if there are twelve of them shooting. Meanwhile, the marine is pelting each Guard with explosive bullets with far greater accuracy against armour that may as well be paper to the boltgun.
Last time I checked Lasgun have accuracy far grater then bolter.
Brother Coa wrote:
Last time I checked Lasgun have accuracy far grater then bolter.
In a battlefield situation an Astartes is more likely to be aiming straight than a Guardsman is. Well trained by todays standards or not, it's still a lot more likely for a Guardsman to be unable to aim straight an an Astartes.
You should totally write down a story on that.
