I've been reading the Horus Heresy books and the Lexicanum and how come that the Imperium don't have boats for combat there must be some world were boats would be needed for combat purposes. Or would they just evaporate the water from orbit? Ork boats would be really cool looking.
Chimeras ignore the effects of water, as they are AT, but I agree that some boats would be nice. However, since few players from my experience use water features frequently, it seems that this isn't likely to happen any time soon.
Orks used subs on Armageddon, which was quite a surprise for the Imperials as they did not expect an assault from the seaside.
All in all, however ... why would the Imperium need boats if they have spaceships? For troops to be landed on any world, interstellar transport is required, which means huge kilometer-long starcruisers with dropships, cannons and fightercraft. Said dropships can make planetfall anywhere they want already, and aerial superiority would simply bombard anything on open waters.
There may be some few exceptions to this rule, such as a waterworld with an atmosphere that hinders aerial deployment somehow, but I doubt the Imperial Guard would keep millions of boats in cold storage just because two or three out of the million worlds in the Imperium have special environmental conditions.
That being said, I would expect many Planetary Defence Forces to make use of traditional boats, simply because for them it might actually make sense for policing local waters. No need to transport them off-world, perfectly attuned to their own planetary conditions, and probably more economical than aircraft.
Unfortunate really now there will never be a WAAAGH ON WATA.
Still for any large scale engagements they would need something bigger and more floaty that's not a word. But still the Adeptus Astartes Battle Yacht!
You could find some boats in BL novels. Mostly small ones, of forces specializing in jungle warfare and thus meant for rivers. Or a few for the open seas.
There must be boats somewhere. I suppose on the bigger, more advanced planets of the imperium they would have some provisions for orbital bombardments, negating the need for big surface ships with long range missiles. I'd imagine most planets under the protection of the emperor, who don't have their own orbital defenses, have some part of an imperial defense fleet reasonably near by.
I cant imagine there would be a lot of need for a military surface navy in the imperium. Maybe commercial marine traffic but not military.
Other races might though. I'm sure that there must be some ork infested planets were the clans zoom about on boats and things. Kinda like what waterworld is to mad max, these planets are to gorka morka.
Good points on this didn't know about the Ork subs though, seems like they would never need boats but the Guard have enough dead weight around anyway (*cough* lasguns *cough*) (HAYO) that having proper battleships could be of use if the Guard have a ground force but can't get aerial reinforcements.
LumbarGibbon wrote:Good points on this didn't know about the Ork subs though, seems like they would never need boats but the Guard have enough dead weight around anyway (*cough* lasguns *cough*) (HAYO) that having proper battleships could be of use if the Guard have a ground force but can't get aerial reinforcements.
I suppose there are few instances where such a situation would occur. Guard regiments are mostly raised on an as-needed basis to help defend Imperial worlds, or to partake in a crusade and invade some other world. In both cases, their delivery means they already have the aerial support they'd need to drop down anywhere they want, whereas boats would be limited to deployment on water with little effect on what's going on landside (where the actual strategic objectives would be located).
I am sure the Imperial Navy could theoretically transport boats in their ships' hulls, but this is cargo space that may as well be taken up by more men and machinery that could be used in land fights. Throwing a bunch of boats into the water would, in most cases, not serve anything. All that could be attacked by these boats can be attacked from air as well - and an air element needs to be present, else those boats could not be brought down in the first place.
There are some garrisoned regiments, too, of course - but even those would have to be mobile and ready to redeploy on another world, hence I'm thinking that boats would be a PDF thing for worlds where the local military deems it necessary or useful. I would assume that they fall under IG authority in case the Munitorum assumes command of the world as a warzone, though. So the potential is still there, it's just circumstantial.
By the way, here's some GW fluff on the Ork subs, just in case you're interested. It's a fun read - also note how at least civilian merchant vessels are referenced in the PDF:
I can imagine Ocean World PDFs operating patrol boats and navy's. Warships can stay in an area in water without wasting fuel or hovering relentlessly like aircraft.
Main reason they haven't been seen is because GW doesn't want to release a line of warships for every faction. As for what the factions have already been established to have:
-Imperium: Land Raiders, Rhino's, and Chimeras are all amphibious, Land Raiders are completely able to submerge. Space Marines in full armor can also operate underwater, as the Space Wolves have done so.
-Orks: Submarines
-Tyranids: Aquatic organisms are quickly made by the Hivemind (see the old 40k Trading Card Game, Tyranids have giant squids and hermit crabs)
-Tau: Underwater cities, aquatic battlesuits, and submarines (detailed in an underwater battle they had with the Space Wolves).
LumbarGibbon wrote:Seem like GW sold that sub at some point wonder if they still do pretty interesting that Orks do something smart and new.
I do not think they ever sold it - the one and only place this baby showed up was the worldwide campaign during the Third War of Armageddon. However, GW has always occasionally provided instructions on how to scratch-build cool things or even provide rules for them, which it appears is what they did here, too.
Unfortunately, that has become a lot less frequent in the last couple years.
I still have that cardboard SoB chapel from WD #212. It came with a guide on how to further tweak it with plastic bits, too. And a mission in which it was an objective.
It wouldn't surprise me if PDFs and civilised worlds did have a number of larger vessels, submersible or otherwise.
In a civilisation where Orbital weapons are a prime target for an invading force, they are static and the first target for an invading army.
By having oncean launched weapons platform, eliminating a planets ordital defences becomes significantly more difficult. Its even feasable they could be void shielded. Once the fighting starts.
As traditional warships I agree with the above. As a platform for orbital defence weaponry I believe they still have a role to play.
Read the novel, Flesh and Iron by Henry Zou. The main regiment in that are an aquatic one specialized in river patrols (they use gun boats and other small water craft, ie think US Vietnam river units), whilst there's also a large naval (as in boats, not planes) force (which oddly is a guard regiment, not a separate wing of the army). Along with much of the Imperial Forces focus being aquatic, they also come up against rebel gun boats and junkers. A lot of the novel is focussed on this aspect (its a bit Apocalypse now, an army moving up into the mainland via rivers to take out a big gun that's preventing the troop carriers from hitting the mainland, and later a naval battle on the open water).
So yes, there are regiments dedicated to naval warfare, as are there those committed to anti gravity, mining, etc. Its the issue however that not every battle requires this, so it happens that such regiments are only committed to fighting in their own specialized field, otherwise, when there isn't enough soldiers available, they're just flung in with the foot grunts. <Ie Gaunt's Ghosts being told to fight a trench war when they're stealth experts experienced in forest and urban warfare.>
Wyrmalla wrote: Read the novel, Flesh and Iron by Henry Zou. The main regiment in that are an aquatic one specialized in river patrols (they use gun boats and other small water craft, ie think US Vietnam river units),
Considering how Zou plagiarized extensively from real soldiers accounts, that's not surprising.
Wyrmalla wrote: Read the novel, Flesh and Iron by Henry Zou. The main regiment in that are an aquatic one specialized in river patrols (they use gun boats and other small water craft, ie think US Vietnam river units),
Considering how Zou plagiarized extensively from real soldiers accounts, that's not surprising.
=P The plot's Apocalypse now to a T, whilst the character development comes from that one Iraq War novel. Meh, I hardly think it was intentional however, or at least he thought that they'd transfer well into science fiction.
Imperial forces just typically use aircraft instead of boats, why would the guard worry about getting a boat when they may have a Valkyrie available, why would SM use a boat when they could probably call a Thunderhawk. The Land Raider is at least a sealed environment, in the SW codex there is an account of a great company driving their LRs underwater to attack a Tau base.
That isn't to say there aren't boats, of course there are, I just don't think the IoM is concerned with them on a large scale because they will typically have aircraft and spacecraft that can do the same job, most of the time even better.
I'll read that novel you said about maybe and all points are very good, overall if the Imperium did get boats then well there would be lots of sick wolves.
0.o Are we going to start discussing the merits of nautical air craft carriers and troop transports over air ones? Aircraft carriers allow you to have a mobile location from which to launch planes from, where say the distance from the nearest air base is prohibitive (for instance if the Imperials didn't have any bases on the land). Troop carriers could deploy Imperial troops and vehicles in large numbers along with other equipment in much larger numbers than aircraft could, whilst doing so in a more secure manner (rather than dropping them out of the back of a plane). They're not widely seen in the fiction or the game itself because most of the battles take place on land, outside of the area of influence of the ships. I would guess they'd also not be used in the cases where the space fleet could provide constant assistance, but I would say the fleet would be used for support, not to directly to replace the nautical forces.
BlaxicanX wrote: What can a boat do that a landing craft couldn't do?
If you're talking about the bog standard IG dropship: shoot. (*this is based on current fluff, which may at any time past or future be revised without warning by our spiritual liege)
0.o Say there's a load of AA guns, or you need a more stable base from which to launch your attack. Discussing the the pros and cons is a bit of a fools errand really as its simple to just come up with a fictional situation where such an eventuality would require one solution or the other (thus why I loathe the blanket statements that the fluff makes).
A couple reasons. People live on land. And the scope of 40K is interstellar, not inter-littoral, lol.
There are probably lots of boats in PDFs, and the IGuard probably also have boats that get used.
But it's not really relevant to the game.
It's the same reason that 40K didn't have fliers for a long time. It was supposed to be small unit actions between infantry units. Demand from players (and probably near-saturation of the infantry and tank market) created the advent of fliers for 6th Edition 40K.
BlaxicanX wrote: What can a boat do that a landing craft couldn't do?
If you're talking about the bog standard IG dropship: shoot. (*this is based on current fluff, which may at any time past or future be revised without warning by our spiritual liege)
That's what the bombers and air superiority fighters are for. Besides, all the IG dropships are bristling with guns.
When you have amphibious transports, and hermetically sealed tanks that can run through vacuum, hazardous atmospheres and underwater - and anti-grav, oceans and wet-navies become mostly irrelevant.
The only blue water navy i read about in 40k. Is in Flesh and Iron
It has Atleast a giant multi mile long Aircraft carrier for support aircraft (carrying squadrons of Marauder bombers, lighting fighters and more), a massive Battleship with "Meters thick adamantium hull"
and other ships liek Cruisers and destroyers.
Even Assault boats called Orcas or smaller river craft, often armed and armored like a typical IG war machine.
the enemy the IG were facing also had small watercraft. most were modified civilian craft but they still had plenty of guns onbaord.
Otherwise. aside from the Ork sub. I have no knowledge of a wet navy.
Wet navies are pretty much obsolete in the 40k universe, the existence of the Persepian Nautical Fleet in Flesh and Iron is an anomaly and a head scratcher given that a spacegoing vessel would fulfill the same exact role... from space... speaking of which, I got more of a Guns of Navarrone vibe than I did an Apocalypse Now! feeling... in fact I didnt see Apocalypse Now! in it at all, really the only parallel is the fact that they went upriver in boats... Apocalypse Now is about the characters development as he goes upriver rather than the journey up the river itself, whereas there really wasn't much character development that I could see in the book until they reached the gun.
And dont kid yourself its a terrible book filled with plot holes and faulty logic. The super cannon thing was built as a massive artillery piece to defend the only continent from what now? They had to send a regiment up river to try to destroy it for what reason exactly?? They couldnt use a space vessel to accomplish this task because?? They couldnt airlift the units to within striking distance of the anon because...?
Kaldor wrote: Why use boats, when you have starships? What possible use would there be for a boat? Submarines, maybe. But not boats.
Troop deployment in an area with intact anti-air defenses? (remember, in 40k these reach out to 60k km, IIRC, and can shoot down battleships and SM battlebarges)
I remember the Soul Drinkers (Renegades) making a boat to sail across a literal sea of plague/disease. Besides that Ork subs are all I've heard of. Also neither of these are imperial
I've read the Vanilla Marines Codex, and it said that during the Assault on Black Reach, ork looters came out of a sub that came from the orks secret base, which Sgt. Telion tracked to their HQ. If the orks did indeed have underwater assets that rendered aerial assets useless, what would say the IG or Space Marines do?
Kaldor wrote: Why use boats, when you have starships? What possible use would there be for a boat? Submarines, maybe. But not boats.
Troop deployment in an area with intact anti-air defenses? (remember, in 40k these reach out to 60k km, IIRC, and can shoot down battleships and SM battlebarges)
If the anti-air is so strong that you can't even move your ships into orbit, than having boats would be useless as well, since you wouldn't be able to land them.
Kaldor wrote: Why use boats, when you have starships? What possible use would there be for a boat? Submarines, maybe. But not boats.
Troop deployment in an area with intact anti-air defenses? (remember, in 40k these reach out to 60k km, IIRC, and can shoot down battleships and SM battlebarges)
If it can shoot down a battleship, it can sure as hell fire laterally and destroy a water-ship.
Besides, why not just deploy via orbital landing craft, flying low over the surface? This isn't like the real world where we need aircraft carriers to launch and resupply aircraft.
BlaxicanX wrote: If the anti-air is so strong that you can't even move your ships into orbit, than having boats would be useless as well, since you wouldn't be able to land them.
... the funny answer: line of sight. The only ones that can fire over the horizon are torpedo launchers, and those have to be hotwired and reprogrammed. (Something the mechanicus is loathe to do except in the direst of circumstances). If lances have line of sight, they're quite capable of killing titans (and for those of you who have them for your tabletops, they're AP 1 strength D weapons, according to the GW pdf).
Kaldor wrote:
If it can shoot down a battleship, it can sure as hell fire laterally and destroy a water-ship.
Besides, why not just deploy via orbital landing craft, flying low over the surface? This isn't like the real world where we need aircraft carriers to launch and resupply aircraft.
According to 40k fluff, you need an airfield or starship launch bays to launch and resupply aircraft. And, there is the small problem of the planet being in the way for anything further than the horizon. Only torpedoes can be fired over the horizon, as they an e reprogrammed for reentry.
BlaxicanX wrote: If the anti-air is so strong that you can't even move your ships into orbit, than having boats would be useless as well, since you wouldn't be able to land them.
... the funny answer: line of sight. The only ones that can fire over the horizon are torpedo launchers, and those have to be hotwired and reprogrammed. (Something the mechanicus is loathe to do except in the direst of circumstances). If lances have line of sight, they're quite capable of killing titans (and for those of you who have them for your tabletops, they're AP 1 strength D weapons, according to the GW pdf).
That doesn't address what I said. If the anti-air is so thick that ships can't even park around the planet, how are you going to get your boats from space into the water?
BlaxicanX wrote: If the anti-air is so strong that you can't even move your ships into orbit, than having boats would be useless as well, since you wouldn't be able to land them.
... the funny answer: line of sight. The only ones that can fire over the horizon are torpedo launchers, and those have to be hotwired and reprogrammed. (Something the mechanicus is loathe to do except in the direst of circumstances). If lances have line of sight, they're quite capable of killing titans (and for those of you who have them for your tabletops, they're AP 1 strength D weapons, according to the GW pdf).
That doesn't address what I said. If the anti-air is so thick that ships can't even park around the planet, how are you going to get your boats from space into the water?
Affecting a landing into relatively safe unoccupied space will be significantly easier than affecting a troop landing near defensive hard points.
In fact in a world with alarge ocean, it may be the best option, to land a wet navy as a base of operations and then an amphibious assault to get a beach head on land, along with your own aa and air support.
Airpower is not global generally and does take time to mobolise and deploy. Using that time to deploy a wet navy with a regiment or 2 aboard may be the safest thing to do given most AA is land based.
This question gets asked once a month if not more on Dakka. there are fluff examples of boats and submarines in 40k fluff.
orks - have used submarines in fluff
space marines - space marine tanks can ride out on the bottom of oceans and space marines can also fight under water.
tyranid -have biocreatures evolved for underwater life
humans - PDF forces on water worlds/worlds with large bodies of water have sea vessels (this is from then tyranid fluff)
the reason why it is not highlighted in fluff is due to the fact that most players have little interest in it.
humans - PDF forces on water worlds/worlds with large bodies of water have sea vessels (this is from then tyranid fluff)
the reason why it is not highlighted in fluff is due to the fact that most players have little interest in it.
It's used in Dead in the Water, as well. and much like certain other eternal questions of 40k, are unlikely to be cleared up, because there's either no money in it, or they think for some god awful reason that it might drive away customers who aren't into such modern ideas as 'combined arms'.
Well ... let's not forget that novels (or any other outsourced product, for that matter) don't necessarily have to be "in synch" with everything that GW writes. If some books out there have the Imperial Guard use boats - regardless of the aforementioned reasons of why that would not be practical, and their continued absence in GW's fluff (even where oceans are involved in the fighting, such as the invasion of Tempestora Hive on Armageddon) - then that's quite simply that one author's own, private opinion and interpretation of the setting, but nothing that would necessarily have any meaning for the greater franchise.
If you like it, roll with it. It is just as valid an interpretation of the 41st millennium as what GW is writing. But don't be disappointed if GW and other authors will continue to ignore stuff like that.
tl;dr: appearances in some source do not render something a "fact" - this franchise doesn't work like that. The only "established truths" would be what is uniformly accepted across the majority of products, such as the Emperor being a corpse on Terra, or the Ultramarines having blue armour.
In the bokk The fall of Damnos there is a map in the book which details different parts of the war. One of these describes the Necrons sucking all the water out of an ocean into a dimensional sinkhole. It then describes combat vessels being grounded and the crews killed. This would seem to imply that there are combat ready boats in 40K, if not in the rules.
Reading through this I see that there is more to this than I thought, thanks to everyone for the replies reading them has defiantly helped and I didn't even know about half of these events.
I think i remember there being a battle utilizing a giant beachhead in one of the Gaunt's Ghosts novels? It was basically the landing at Nromandy, but ten times the size (in usual WH40k fashion, of course)
Which is easier dropping them off miles from anywhere in largely undefended ocean, than forcing a landing or airstrike on surface to air assets or hard targets on land.
Its not perfect,
But I can easily see a navy being deployed, for a forward command and control element, and a ready to use airstrip for instant Air support deployement, rearming and refueling.
Less so as a military unit in its own right.
All I'm saying is affecting a landing in ocean is likely easier to obtain, and results in a forward operating base on planet, plus near invulnerability to traditional ground forces.
Eetion wrote:Which is easier dropping them off miles from anywhere in largely undefended ocean, than forcing a landing or airstrike on surface to air assets or hard targets on land.
And how will you get the troops from the ocean to where they are actually needed?
Will the beach where you'll have to land be undefended? Why exactly can't the dropships land at the beach, then?
I'm sorry, I believe all you'd end up doing would be to give the enemy more time to prepare for the invasion...
Will the beach where you'll have to land be undefended? Why exactly can't the dropships land at the beach, then?
Most likely not, but then, His (Space) Marines have experience landing on all sorts of beachheads. The thing about 40kAA, at least the big stuff, is it's immobile (partially because it takes the reactors of whole hive cities to fire). You can't just bring it to the beach to use it.
And remember that drop ships can be shot down by hydras, let alone any of the serious aa.
Eetion wrote: Which is easier dropping them off miles from anywhere in largely undefended ocean, than forcing a landing or airstrike on surface to air assets or hard targets on land.
Its not perfect,
But I can easily see a navy being deployed, for a forward command and control element, and a ready to use airstrip for instant Air support deployement, rearming and refueling.
Less so as a military unit in its own right.
All I'm saying is affecting a landing in ocean is likely easier to obtain, and results in a forward operating base on planet, plus near invulnerability to traditional ground forces.
If you can land a boat in an ocean, from space, you can land flying craft in an ocean from space even easier.
Eetion wrote: Which is easier dropping them off miles from anywhere in largely undefended ocean, than forcing a landing or airstrike on surface to air assets or hard targets on land.
Its not perfect,
But I can easily see a navy being deployed, for a forward command and control element, and a ready to use airstrip for instant Air support deployement, rearming and refueling.
Less so as a military unit in its own right.
All I'm saying is affecting a landing in ocean is likely easier to obtain, and results in a forward operating base on planet, plus near invulnerability to traditional ground forces.
Orbital dropships, such as IG landing craft, SM space-to-atmosphere craft (Thunderhawks etc) and Navy craft (Valkyries etc) all have enough range to fly laps around a planet on a single 'tank' of fuel. Instead of dropping boats in a safe area, then sailing into combat, why wouldn't the Imperium drop aircraft in a safe area and fly into battle?
Because by flying into battle your still exposing to AA. They have no support, rearming facilities, if they fail first time your deployment is significantly harder.
But let's assume you deploy to land to take out. Surface to orbit weapons platforms to allow a mass invasion,
You deploy to large open space or take the closer and more risky option, suitable for Thunderbolt insertion Lightnings don't have rocket boosters (and it would have to be Thunderbolt to maintian the exit strategy as if you assault from orbit, you must have the capacity to return otherwise its a one way trip).
Identify the weapon platform, and run the AA gauntlet. Also run the defending Air cover to initiate the attack.
All the while your support ship in orbit is pretty much exposed to incoming fire or it can leave orbit and leave you stranded.
By using a naval base of operations a more measured and cautious approach can be taken. Aircraft can re armed, provide aircover to any further troop ships coming in once a beach head is established. Its not a cross your fingers and hope situation.
Of course this is all based on the assumption a planet has heavy orbital defences, most of the time a drop can be made without too much issue. But just trying to say an a wet fleet could have a place in a command and control facility.
Eetion wrote: Because by flying into battle your still exposing to AA. They have no support, rearming facilities, if they fail first time your deployment is significantly harder.
But you're forgetting that all AA weapons can also be aimed laterally to become AW (anti-water) weapons as well. An air assault is no more exposed than a water based one.
By using a naval base of operations a more measured and cautious approach can be taken. Aircraft can re armed, provide aircover to any further troop ships coming in once a beach head is established. Its not a cross your fingers and hope situation.
And why not simply park the space-navy on the opposite side of the planet (or at least over the horizon?) From there it is no more vulnerable than a naval base of operations, and can resupply and refuel the air transports and attack craft as needed.
I just really struggle to think of a situation where water craft would be the most functional way of doing things. In almost every situation, an aircraft flying low over the surface fills exactly the same role, and is much more flexible. The only situation I can think of where water craft would be necessary would be assaults on underwater installations.
Eetion wrote: Because by flying into battle your still exposing to AA. They have no support, rearming facilities, if they fail first time your deployment is significantly harder.
But you're forgetting that all AA weapons can also be aimed laterally to become AW (anti-water) weapons as well. An air assault is no more exposed than a water based one.
By using a naval base of operations a more measured and cautious approach can be taken. Aircraft can re armed, provide aircover to any further troop ships coming in once a beach head is established. Its not a cross your fingers and hope situation.
And why not simply park the space-navy on the opposite side of the planet (or at least over the horizon?) From there it is no more vulnerable than a naval base of operations, and can resupply and refuel the air transports and attack craft as needed.
I just really struggle to think of a situation where water craft would be the most functional way of doing things. In almost every situation, an aircraft flying low over the surface fills exactly the same role, and is much more flexible. The only situation I can think of where water craft would be necessary would be assaults on underwater installations.
Well AW weapons would have to contend with significant guns back, armourand can take a good deal more damage rather than flimsy aircraft AS WELL as the aircraft in a supporting role, while front line formations rush to block any likely target as they don't really know where the beach head will come.
Thing is with orbit is that its really high up. Just over the horizen is fine for 1 orbital, but not the other 5 or 6 on the planets hemisphere. For example let's say the imperium invaded Earth
They land a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic,no AW weapon can touch it.
Howevee any orbiting vessel in station exposes itself to any orbital weapon across western Europe and eastern USA. It either takes the hits or withdraws and leaves the fighters and hopes.
But you're forgetting that all AA weapons can also be aimed laterally to become AW (anti-water) weapons as well. An air assault is no more exposed than a water based one.
'Small' AA like Hydras, or Whirlwinds, sure. The stuff that would give water ships issues, not so much. Remember that a 'small' large 40kAA weapon requires a Warlord titan to move, and the really big ones can only move as part of an ordinatus, fi then.
But not that I know of. Aquamarines sound like as if they have fought underwater though.
The Space Wolves and the Tau mixed it up at the bottom of an Ocean. The Tau used specialized undersea power armour and submarines, the Space Wolves used Land Raiders and Terminator Armour.
"Planetary invasions are urgent, swift and terrible affairs, characterised by deafening noise, bone-shattering explosions and the stench of death. Thousands of reckless and battle-hungry warriors plunge downwards upon trails of flame and vapour like vengeful angels, pouring from the drop-craft and low-orbiting spaceships that darken the skies above. Megatonnes of ordnance hammer down around these skyborne warriors, their detonation so devastating that the skies themselves seem afire; red, black and blinding white like the fires of hell. Pillars of ghostly light probe the skies, their colonnades all but transforming the battlefield into some vast and surreal shrine to the gods of war. Their touch is certain death to any invader caught in their beams, and red-hot debris rains from the skies as batteries of anti-aircraft guns take their toll.
Below the chaotic skies lies a war-torn landscape chewed up and spat out by the incessant bombardments that precede the invasion. The surreal mudscape is punctuated only be the ruined shells of once-proud buildings and by inviolable strongholds that jut like tombstones from the tortured earth. The comparison is apt, for the doomed soldiers who defend these bastions of order from the storm of violence that threatens to consume them will emerge as corpses or not at all.
The wounded and dying are spread across the tracts of no-man's-land between these bleak monoliths. Thunderous explosions come from nowhere to tear apart whole platoons, numbing the senses of the survivors so that they stumble into the teeth of the enemy's guns. Above them, attack craft roar across the skies through lattices of ruby-red lasfire and rocket contrails, strafing any man who dares stray into the open before screaming off through the flak to the next warzone. Drop Pods and gigantic landers plummet from the heavens, shaking the ground with their impact before disgorging yet more men into the merciless meat grinder of a planetary assault." - Introduction of Codex Planetstrike
At least in GW's vision of the setting, using naval ships seems to be something that the Imperium just doesn't do. It is left to us to theorise about the why's, although many potential explanations (limited use versus cargo space and crew requirements, planetary conditions, nature of defences) have already been given in this thread.
BaronIveagh wrote:'Small' AA like Hydras, or Whirlwinds, sure. The stuff that would give water ships issues, not so much. Remember that a 'small' large 40kAA weapon requires a Warlord titan to move, and the really big ones can only move as part of an ordinatus, fi then.
A couple things that spring to mind:
a) planetary invasions are almost always accompanied by orbital strikes and/or bombing runs (see above), as all the assets are already part of the assembled invasion force.
b) if by "water ships" you are referring to huge cruisers rather than landing craft, that may be true, but water displacement means that your bigass battleship won't be of much use for actually getting people to the beach. you will still need small and vulnerable landing craft.
c) for mobile AA, I'm pretty sure that anything capable of taking down this baby in the background can also take down a surface battleship.
d) a fleet in orbit hot-dropping infantry and vehicles onto a landing zone means the troops will be where they are meant to fight in a matter of hours. circumventing potential defences by landing them in a body of water many hundreds or thousands of miles away just gives the enemy more time to prepare and reposition their guns to greet the invader.
Eetion wrote:They land a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic,no AW weapon can touch it.
Howevee any orbiting vessel in station exposes itself to any orbital weapon across western Europe and eastern USA. It either takes the hits or withdraws and leaves the fighters and hopes.
I'm not sure I follow you here.
A starship in orbit over either Europe or the USA is exposing itself to long ranged weapons from both continents, but a starship coming down in the ocean beneath them can't be touched by either?
But let's assume you meant that perhaps they just would not be subjected to as much enemy AA fire. Whilst that would be true, ships of the Imperial Navy are commonly protected by powerful void shields, which quite often cannot be said for most defensive positions, even where a world would possess such armaments that would reach up into the orbit and have the potential to destroy a star cruiser. Also, as per the Battlefleet Gothic rules, planetary anti-ship weapons are assumed to normally have a 90° firing cone, as they are concealed in underground silos for a certain degree of protection from enemy bombardment. So either the defender will lose its weapons to preliminary bombardment or, if he saw fit to protect it, it will not be of much use in aiming at the rapidly descending drop craft and gigantic landers. Naturally, there will still be losses incurred by resisting bastions and emplacements that have somehow escaped the orbital punishment and bomber runs, yet it seems that such hardship would not incur sufficient losses or defeats as to make the Imperium reconsider its tactics.
At least in GW's vision of the setting, using naval ships seems to be something that the Imperium just doesn't do. It is left to us to theorise about the why's, although many potential explanations (limited use versus cargo space and crew requirements, planetary conditions, nature of defences) have already been given in this thread.
Climbing to a better vantage point, or wearing helmets is also something the Imperium just doesn't do on the table top. I'll just point out that, at least in fluff, IG has water navy at the very least up to the size of a coast guard gutter (Apparently used by the Vostroyans) and battleship sized behemoths that sound like they mount titan weapons.
c) for mobile AA, I'm pretty sure that anything capable of taking down this baby in the background can also take down a surface battleship.
LOL. Um, yeah, Lynata, about that... in fluff they die to hits from a single ork with a rokkit launcher. They get shot down by Hydras. They get shot down by gargoyles. Gretchen have disabled them. (It sucks to be IG)
I'm not sure I follow you here.
A starship in orbit over either Europe or the USA is exposing itself to long ranged weapons from both continents, but a starship coming down in the ocean beneath them can't be touched by either?
But let's assume you meant that perhaps they just would not be subjected to as much enemy AA fire. Whilst that would be true, ships of the Imperial Navy are commonly protected by powerful void shields, which quite often cannot be said for most defensive positions, even where a world would possess such armaments that would reach up into the orbit and have the potential to destroy a star cruiser. Also, as per the Battlefleet Gothic rules, planetary anti-ship weapons are assumed to normally have a 90° firing cone, as they are concealed in underground silos for a certain degree of protection from enemy bombardment. So either the defender will lose its weapons to preliminary bombardment or, if he saw fit to protect it, it will not be of much use in aiming at the rapidly descending drop craft and gigantic landers. Naturally, there will still be losses incurred by resisting bastions and emplacements that have somehow escaped the orbital punishment and bomber runs, yet it seems that such hardship would not incur sufficient losses or defeats as to make the Imperium reconsider its tactics.
Ok, one sec: torpedoes would be quite effective against an LZ, they used them as ICBMs in one of the Iron Warriors novels. Macrobatteries, you have a point, but lances have been retconned and are now turrets with void shields capable of killing titans. (They're an unlimited range str D weapon according to the apocalypse sheet).
What he's driving at is that large oceans allow you to use the curvature of the planet against the defenders. Once below the emplacements horizon, you're in the clear, unless all the ground emplacements have seeking torps. However, GW likes ot launch human wave assaults at dug in positions, even when landing from space. Using strategy or tactics is not grimdark.
That's it of course cruisers can be shot at with orbitals in both cases, with navy the cruiser can withdraw in face of heavy orbital fire. If its having to maintain station to collect a wing of Thunderbolts it can't.
By deploying a wet navy in a relatively safe drop compared to planetside, they deploy the following.
:- Command and Control facilities
MObile Airfield and cover
A couple of Guard regiments,
Heavy Artillery
Capacity to attack from anywhere along that body of water.
AA facilities.
Its not a massively useful situation, but faced with a plane with significant orbital defences, it would be the safest option.
As for that fluff snippet from planet strilke. That all describes the experience for troops on the ground. Not the only method of performing a landing.
BaronIveagh wrote:Climbing to a better vantage point, or wearing helmets is also something the Imperium just doesn't do on the table top. I'll just point out that, at least in fluff, IG has water navy at the very least up to the size of a coast guard gutter (Apparently used by the Vostroyans) and battleship sized behemoths that sound like they mount titan weapons.
We are talking about the fluff here, hence I delivered fluff quotes, no? The fluff you are referring to, however, is apparently not GW's. It was already pointed out that some isolated sources may very well depict just about anything, from IG water navy to Space Marines going into battle with multilasers - it all depends on where you are looking, and if you prefer such interpretations you are free to follow them. Doesn't change that GW's books ignore them.
So basically, what are we talking about here? Are we discussing how GW handles it in their vision, or are we discussing some random novel?
BaronIveagh wrote:LOL. Um, yeah, Lynata, about that... in fluff they die to hits from a single ork with a rokkit launcher. They get shot down by Hydras. They get shot down by gargoyles. Gretchen have disabled them. (It sucks to be IG)
What fluff was that, exactly?
I'm gonna call BS on whatever book suggested Imperial Navy starships can be shot down by a handheld rocket launcher.
BaronIveagh wrote:Ok, one sec: torpedoes would be quite effective against an LZ, they used them as ICBMs in one of the Iron Warriors novels.
Even if we'd go by this one novel, there is no reason these ICBMs could not be launched from orbit, is there?
In fact, that would be far more efficient to do, since ICBMs transit the lower atmosphere during their ballistic flightpath anyways. Again: Why drop down something to do stuff you can just do directly from orbit? Just seems like a huge waste of time and resources, especially since (a) surface water ships are limited in operational range and (b) are not even an option on worlds that lack suitable bodies of water.
BaronIveagh wrote:Macrobatteries, you have a point, but lances have been retconned and are now turrets with void shields capable of killing titans. (They're an unlimited range str D weapon according to the apocalypse sheet).
That does not change much, actually. If the weapon is exposed for a greater firing arc, it will be subject to bombardment. If it is concealed below ground, its targeting will be limited. Both are valid options for defense platforms, but naturally you cannot have an underground weapon with a 360° firing arc. There will always be some drawback.
Also, a turret capable of killing titans (whose range would surely become limited as soon as we move away from tabletop rules) targeting dropships landing on a beach, would just as well be capable of targeting water ships landing on the same beach.
And why are we assuming that a planet has such impressive defenses everywhere and the entire world is riddled with cannons and turrets, anyways? Not even Cadia is that well defended. There will always be weak zones, as the defenders concentrate in fortresses and bunkers. If the defenses around the actual target area are judged to be too strong for a direct assault, the Imperial Guard will simply deploy in safe distance and then creep forward with trench warfare.
To bring us back to the hypothetical invasion of Earth discussed earlier ... even if our world would possess such impressive arsenal, the invader would simply deploy their forces in, say, the Russian Tundra or the Nevada Desert. Because there's jack gak defending those remote places.
Likewise, even if we were to assume that a world would have such defenses installed everywhere, they would logically exist on the beaches as well, and by assuming that the invader has no longer ranged weapons than the defender, all you do is achieve a stalemate.
Again, if the weak spot in an enemy's defenses are his beaches, then you can just as well have the usual drop ships land there rather than first deploying huge water ships, who then deploy smaller landing craft. Even if we were to assume that this would actually result in greater losses, it would be compensated by the fact that neglecting a mobile surface navy means you did not waste any resources (material and manpower) on silly ships that can only be used on a handful of areas on a handful of planets in the sector, rather than the Imperial Navy's capability to deploy anywhere directly, with waves upon waves of small drop ships and giant landers accompanied by orbital bombardment and fighter cover.
BaronIveagh wrote:What he's driving at is that large oceans allow you to use the curvature of the planet against the defenders. Once below the emplacements horizon, you're in the clear, unless all the ground emplacements have seeking torps. However, GW likes ot launch human wave assaults at dug in positions, even when landing from space. Using strategy or tactics is not grimdark.
A more important part of the grimdark is actually the loss of technology. I would presume that guided missiles in 40k aren't as reliable as you seem to assume, be it due to the abysmal state of science in the IoM or because of jamming. Else we would see this being used by the orbiting spaceships - or against those hypothetical water ships, no?
Eetion wrote:As for that fluff snippet from planet strilke. That all describes the experience for troops on the ground. Not the only method of performing a landing.
It describes the default planetary invasion and establishes the maxim that the Imperium seeks to perform such landings as quickly as possible. Deploying thousands of kilometers away on a body of water would thus be counter-productive, if they can just as well deploy hundreds of kilometers away in a safe area on land.
"A planetary invasion is a desperate battle for supremacy where ground taken is more important than lives lost and the invaders rain down their forces directly upon the defence networks of the foe."
As per your list, CnC facilities as well as the "mobile airfield" and the capacity to attack from anywhere (and not just along that body of water) already exist on the starships orbiting the planet and your heavy artillery + AA will be limited by only being able to move on deep-enough sea. Furthermore, some Imperial Navy starships are even equipped with the necessary facilities to drop pre-fabricated bastions directly into the battlefield, or project cones of anti-gravity to allow individual troop deployment directly onto the battlefield (it's like paratroopers without chutes! ).
The setting is (in GW's books) just written in this particular way, and given the descriptions on the Imperial Guard and the Imperial Navy as well as past military campaigns, I do not find this too hard to swallow. There are other things in the fluff that have me scratch my head, but not this topic.
Lynata wrote: We are talking about the fluff here, hence I delivered fluff quotes, no? The fluff you are referring to, however, is apparently not GW's. It was already pointed out that some isolated sources may very well depict just about anything, from IG water navy to Space Marines going into battle with multilasers - it all depends on where you are looking, and if you prefer such interpretations you are free to follow them. Doesn't change that GW's books ignore them.
No, I was referencing Mitchel's Dead in the Water and Zou's book.
I'm gonna call BS on whatever book suggested Imperial Navy starships can be shot down by a handheld rocket launcher.
Not just one. FFG's Battlefleet Koronus, Forgeworld's Imperial Armour Aeronautica, Mitchel's Caves of Ice, and GW's Cityfight all state that IN dropships like the one you pointed out, can be shot down by man portable AA missiles. Don't feel too bad, so can Tau mantas. Planetstrike actually had them shot down with autocannons (pg 63).
Lynata wrote: Even if we'd go by this one novel, there is no reason these ICBMs could not be launched from orbit, is there?
No, but it also failed, to a degree, as anything under the cover of void shields was unharmed.
Lynata wrote: That does not change much, actually. If the weapon is exposed for a greater firing arc, it will be subject to bombardment. If it is concealed below ground, its targeting will be limited. Both are valid options for defense platforms, but naturally you cannot have an underground weapon with a 360° firing arc. There will always be some drawback.
Yes, the drawback is they're fixed positions. Thus that whole 'horizon' problem.
Also, a turret capable of killing titans (whose range would surely become limited as soon as we move away from tabletop rules) targeting dropships landing on a beach, would just as well be capable of targeting water ships landing on the same beach.
The problem is making sure it's on the beach they use. It's not something you can just pick up and move. It's range is around 60,000km, as it's the same a defense lance in bfg.
And why are we assuming that a planet has such impressive defenses everywhere and the entire world is riddled with cannons and turrets, anyways? Not even Cadia is that well defended.
That depends on who wrote the fluff in the book in question. GW's answer is, as always 'YES!'. Planetstrike, has, for example, a planet wide AA defense so powerful that only by the forces of Chaos never bothering to change the passwords to keep the Imperium from reprogramming the AA guns are the Space Marines able to land. You won't have super lasers everywhere, no. Topography and energy requirements would prohibit that.
There will always be weak zones, as the defenders concentrate in fortresses and bunkers. If the defenses around the actual target area are judged to be too strong for a direct assault, the Imperial Guard will simply deploy in safe distance and then creep forward with trench warfare.
The problem is you're assuming the weak point must be on land.
Lynata wrote: A more important part of the grimdark is actually the loss of technology. I would presume that guided missiles in 40k aren't as reliable as you seem to assume, be it due to the abysmal state of science in the IoM or because of jamming. Else we would see this being used by the orbiting spaceships - or against those hypothetical water ships, no?
Actually guided missiles are used by those IoM orbiting space ships. Please consult Battlefleet Gothic: Armada and FFG's Battlefleet Koronus. Basically, putting ships down and working your way to shore is the ocean planet version of trench warfare. The logic is that there are going to be areas that are at the utter limits of missile range due to topography,
As per your list, CnC facilities as well as the "mobile airfield" and the capacity to attack from anywhere (and not just along that body of water) already exist on the starships orbiting the planet and your heavy artillery + AA will be limited by only being able to move on deep-enough sea. Furthermore, some Imperial Navy starships are even equipped with the necessary facilities to drop pre-fabricated bastions directly into the battlefield, or project cones of anti-gravity to allow individual troop deployment directly onto the battlefield (it's like paratroopers without chutes! ).
The setting is (in GW's books) just written in this particular way, and given the descriptions on the Imperial Guard and the Imperial Navy as well as past military campaigns, I do not find this too hard to swallow. There are other things in the fluff that have me scratch my head, but not this topic.
Your missing the point. Iv said several times against Orbital emplacements. That the water navy would be of more use as command and control facilities. Both of the capabilities you mentioned require Orbit. If that is the case, any space vessel exposes itself to the entirety of the planets orbital defence network. If this is significant, moving away from orbit and using Command and Control planetside is more reliable after wet navy deployment, as it is landing in a more lightly defended area compared to any land deployment,.
Once a few Orbital defence problems can be taken out, the fleet can move into orbit and act with more freedom, and deploy more significant land assets
Its no good dropping pre fab structures if you cruiser gets crippled in the process, or your troops get slaughtered in landers against AA emplacements.
I'm gonna call BS on whatever book suggested Imperial Navy starships can be shot down by a handheld rocket launcher.
Not just one. FFG's Battlefleet Koronus, Forgeworld's Imperial Armour Aeronautica, Mitchel's Caves of Ice, and GW's Cityfight all state that IN dropships like the one you pointed out, can be shot down by man portable AA missiles. Don't feel too bad, so can Tau mantas. Planetstrike actually had them shot down with autocannons (pg 63).
I checked page 63, and wasn't able to find the passage you where talking about.
I checked page 63, and wasn't able to find the passage you where talking about.
'Each bastion, bunker, and fortress bristled with expertly primed quad guns and and interceptor cannons...'
Which are, according to the earlier section, quad mounted autocannons and supercharged twinlinked lascannons, respectively. (Yes, again, conflict within the book, the description says they're rare, but the fluff has so many of them that the Space Marines cannot make a landing on the planet until the Inquisition uses it's magic inquisitorial password 'handwavius').
Autocannons are highly variable in calibre and nature, as are most weapons in 40K. The game makes a great many abstractions of things which omits alot of the variation and detail. That's one reason why gameplay is often a bad benchmark for judging or analyzing stuff (although it still happens, even in the novels I suspect..)
I checked page 63, and wasn't able to find the passage you where talking about.
'Each bastion, bunker, and fortress bristled with expertly primed quad guns and and interceptor cannons...'
Which are, according to the earlier section, quad mounted autocannons and supercharged twinlinked lascannons, respectively. (Yes, again, conflict within the book, the description says they're rare, but the fluff has so many of them that the Space Marines cannot make a landing on the planet until the Inquisition uses it's magic inquisitorial password 'handwavius').
Found it, It was on page 62 for me. They where shooting down drop pods though. Not navy ships.
Found it, It was on page 62 for me. They where shooting down drop pods though. Not navy ships.
No, the first thing to blow up was three drop pods. In typical GW what all follows them and how much was destroyed gets vague after that, but the SM are forced back to three strike cruisers. Thunderhawks are also nebulously involved, but again, no numbers. However, strike cruisers do not approach the planet close enough for teleport deployments and orbital bombardment until after the AA defense net is silenced. This suggests that either these were the dumbest space marines in history, or the ground fire represented a real threat to the ships.
One has to wonder how drop pods turn around, given how they're fired at a planet.
Connor MacLeod wrote: Autocannons are highly variable in calibre and nature, as are most weapons in 40K. The game makes a great many abstractions of things which omits alot of the variation and detail. That's one reason why gameplay is often a bad benchmark for judging or analyzing stuff (although it still happens, even in the novels I suspect..)
A miniature exists for quad guns. They come with the aegis defense line.
So, claiming that they said 'autocannons' and meant earthshaker sized ones won't work. Icarus lascannons, mentioned as planetary defense, are also most likely the same icarus lascannons used occasionally in conjunction with vulcan megabolters for the 'turrets' stat on starships. Which shoot down manta's every bit as big as those IN drop ships.
Found it, It was on page 62 for me. They where shooting down drop pods though. Not navy ships.
No, the first thing to blow up was three drop pods. In typical GW what all follows them and how much was destroyed gets vague after that, but the SM are forced back to three strike cruisers. Thunderhawks are also nebulously involved, but again, no numbers. However, strike cruisers do not approach the planet close enough for teleport deployments and orbital bombardment until after the AA defense net is silenced. This suggests that either these were the dumbest space marines in history, or the ground fire represented a real threat to the ships.
One has to wonder how drop pods turn around, given how they're fired at a planet.
Well I guess drop pods could like turn to the side to miss the planet or something. Ya the thing got nebulous. It says the rest of the force came under withering fire. It dosen't say what the force was, or if any ships where shot down. I'm just not seeing how you draw the conclusion that rockets launchers can shoot down spaceships. I want to hear the reference about hand held weapons shooting down a manta because that made me do a little spit take.
I dunno about you, but I'd say having a wet navy in the IoM would make sense because of three reasons:
1. Independence from other ground units - No matter how the IoM is doing on land, water forces are seperate from their situation and can either lend a hand, or remain functional after a complete roflstomp from an enemy force.
2. They are vastly cheaper to build and maintain than a fleet of space faring craft, and can likely provide equally effective ordinance as a space fleet - Yes, the Navy can destroy entire continents with a single salvo, but that's not really the goal when you're securing objectives on said continent.
3. They have unique defenses that make them deadly even to their space counterpart. - i.e. Many weapons hit water like they hit the ground, especially traveling at terminal velocity when launched from orbit, or dissipate quickly due to water's amazing properties of absorbing energy and heat better than almost any substance known. Stealth is also a major component beneath the waves - especially on worlds covered in ice. i.e. Valhalla would benefit greatly from a fleet of submarines that could punch through the ice and deliver their missiles to targets airborne, abroad, or in the great airless voids of space.
The Imperium gains little from defending themselves by sea that airborne combat doesn't accomplish faster, easier and simpler most of the time personally. Also very few strategic points on an ocean (when you think on a planetary scale) I think it is done, but rare as horsemounted combat in our battlefields today.
Big Mek Wurrzog wrote: The Imperium gains little from defending themselves by sea that airborne combat doesn't accomplish faster, easier and simpler most of the time personally. Also very few strategic points on an ocean (when you think on a planetary scale)
True, there are few strategic locations in the ocean, but a whole lot of them bordering it. The idea is, rather then trying to land by ramming drop ships and drop pods down their throat until they bury them under the weight of the wrecks, executing a landing by sea bypasses a lot of it and gives you more tactical flexibility once landed.
Granted, again, using tactics instead of burying them under the weight of their dead is not grimdark, and so the IoM will never 'officially' do it outside BL novels.
CrashCanuck wrote: The Land Raider is at least a sealed environment, in the SW codex there is an account of a great company driving their LRs underwater to attack a Tau base.
Not entirely sure how that works. Since the exhausts on the back indicate some sort of combustion engine, which would require oxygen.
The Rhino has twin engines, conventional engines and electric reserves. Basicly they just run on 2 of their four engines.
Presumably the Land Raider is the same or similar.
Big Mek Wurrzog wrote: The Imperium gains little from defending themselves by sea that airborne combat doesn't accomplish faster, easier and simpler most of the time personally. Also very few strategic points on an ocean (when you think on a planetary scale)
True, there are few strategic locations in the ocean, but a whole lot of them bordering it. The idea is, rather then trying to land by ramming drop ships and drop pods down their throat until they bury them under the weight of the wrecks, executing a landing by sea bypasses a lot of it and gives you more tactical flexibility once landed.
Granted, again, using tactics instead of burying them under the weight of their dead is not grimdark, and so the IoM will never 'officially' do it outside BL novels.
When the water provides protection from detection, the oceans become a key strategic objective in themselves - especially when individual subs these days carry nuclear arsenals that are capable of global annihilation on a chemical, biological, and nuclear level. Plane's have always feared the oceans because they belong to the navy's that have patrolled them. When missiles start erupting from their depths, it may be difficult for an air force to reach its destination. How's that for grimdark lol?
CrashCanuck wrote: The Land Raider is at least a sealed environment, in the SW codex there is an account of a great company driving their LRs underwater to attack a Tau base.
Not entirely sure how that works. Since the exhausts on the back indicate some sort of combustion engine, which would require oxygen.
The Rhino has twin engines, conventional engines and electric reserves. Basicly they just run on 2 of their four engines.
Presumably the Land Raider is the same or similar.
Diesel engine submarines have valves to shut off the snorkels which dispose of the exhaust and take in air, the exhausts on a Land Raider are clearly exposed (along with the weaponry and other electrics). Also the cabin would have to be pressurised.
In a lascannon it probably won't make too much difference other to range and effectivenes. In heavy Bolters isn't the charge produced in the shell casing enabling the round to work in a vaccuum.
The exhausts will probably be sealable, and its not absolutely definite that it is a traditional diesel engine as opposed to a reactor of some form.
I'm pretty sure that I have the IA at home for the landraider specs. When I get home I will have a look.
Also if it is a traditional engine I'm sure iv read that Promethium can burn underwater, I'm not sure and can't cite a source however, but if they can run in a vaccum it stands to reason that a O2 isn't a prerequisite for it to run.
As for the cabin being pressurised, would it not need to be so anyway for the airless/radioactive/hazardous worlds it operates on anyway?
Those arguing earth curvature would provide cover against defense weapons forget indirect fire. Sure you cannot fire laser or other energy weapons where the shot follows the line of sight. But projectiles follow the ballistic curve. Modern artillery has so long range they have to include the coriolis effect into targetting - meaning when the projectile reaches earth again, because of earth rotation and mass inertia the ground will have moved away under the shell. No problem to cover dozends of kilometers, no problem to hit over that distance, either, provided you do your math.
As my friend's IG russes, mortars and basiliks so skillfully demonstrate whenever I try to las-spam his tank fleet, the Imperium has the knowledge, the weapons and the math to provide indirect artillery fire.
But I suppose stealth might nevertheless be the reason to deploy wet naval units. Submersible units at least. If strategic goals demand the insertion of a secret operational base instead of the massive precision strike for example.
Simulate an orbital strike gone wrong, have one or more ships prepared to simulate wreckage and go down in blazing glory over ocean areas. When your landing crafts have submersed, deploy your underwater carriers and prepare an underwater operational basis elsewhere. Make sure you blew up everything that looked like your landing ships were not dysfunctional while falling from the sky, so that a mistrusting defender may find nothing suspect about the wreckage.
The fact that someone is discussing the question if you need a wet navy when you have orbiters, drop ships and atmospheric flyers that can deploy in space, this fact alone is reason to include oceanic warfare into your strategy. Because someone WILL have a blind spot there.
Curvature off the earth included. There isn't a AA weapon or artillery platform around that can target something deploying in the middle of the Atlantic.
I won't debate the logic of what your saying but the closer the minute your using AA and nopt orbitals to prevent drop ships in the middle of the ocean your out of luck.
Eetion wrote: Also if it is a traditional engine I'm sure iv read that Promethium can burn underwater, I'm not sure and can't cite a source however, but if they can run in a vaccum it stands to reason that a O2 isn't a prerequisite for it to run.
Combustion isn't possible without an Oxident. Looks like this is another element of 40k law with no basis in reality. There's nothing wrong with that but IMO the Land Raider was already impressive enough before they said it could drive underwater.
ENOZONE wrote:When missiles start erupting from their depths, it may be difficult for an air force to reach its destination. How's that for grimdark lol?
Not even close to grimdark. The missiles are not powered by burning babies, nor does it take a virgin sacrifice to maintain the ship underwater. One thing about nukes and 40k, they're rarely seen (other than in the DKoK back-story) because they require a 10 megaton+ hit to breach a void shield.
nomotog wrote:You can't pressurize a fire port.
No, but bolters in general are of pretty limited use underwater. There's a reason that most of the time when there's an epic underwater battle with SM, it's usually one of the hand to hand chapters involved. Lascannons run into a similar problem, as water is a fantastic medium for dissipating energy, particularly heat and light.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eetion wrote: I agree. But if something is described. We can only hypothesise how and why.
In this case the Oxidant could be contained within the chemical make up of promethium
No, that wouldn't work, it'd make promethium too unstable to use in flamers, etc, and flamers are specifically stated not to work in a vacuum. So how promethium works I have no idea.
No, but bolters in general are of pretty limited use underwater. There's a reason that most of the time when there's an epic underwater battle with SM, it's usually one of the hand to hand chapters involved. Lascannons run into a similar problem, as water is a fantastic medium for dissipating energy, particularly heat and light.
How many epic underwater battles with SMs are there? I can only think of that one SWs. If you know of any others, you should spill it.
BaronIveagh wrote:No, the first thing to blow up was three drop pods. In typical GW what all follows them and how much was destroyed gets vague after that, but the SM are forced back to three strike cruisers.
The only thing I find "vague" here is your extrapolation.
The strike cruisers launched drop pods, and some of them got shot down. That's it. The cruisers are not part of the "attack wave" since they are the basis from which said wave was launched. And the Thunderhawks you mentioned are only referred to as part of a later assault, too, mentioned to launch after the AA fell silent.
It really pays to double-check everything people state on these forums.
By the way, you don't happen to have a citation for what you suggested the Codex Citystrike would say?
BaronIveagh wrote:However, strike cruisers do not approach the planet close enough for teleport deployments and orbital bombardment until after the AA defense net is silenced. This suggests that either these were the dumbest space marines in history, or the ground fire represented a real threat to the ships.
It represented "a real threat" to the drop pods they had launched, as evidently they got downed. Deployment range for orbital bombardment and troop deployment is actually equal. The text makes it fairly clear that the attacking Astartes underestimated the defence potential of this world, however. The Inquisitor then points out that these unexpected guns were a trap laid by the CSMs, and I'm going to assume the command code that ultimately silenced them was some sort of power grid shutdown sequence for the facilities that housed these emplacements.
With better recon, I assume the Marines would have simply selected a different deployment site a couple kilometers outside the hive (because hive =/= hive world), or, more likely, would have spent half an hour or so shelling the LZ before sending their pods down.
BaronIveagh wrote:One has to wonder how drop pods turn around, given how they're fired at a planet.
They don't. At least the text does not suggest they did. It mentions they came under heavy fire, but since the book only talks of three pods exploding I suppose the rest managed to land, with the Brother Marines they were carrying now having to fight under-strength. The Space Marines were forced to re-think their strategy, as the text puts it, simply because they could not afford to lose three or more pods with every wave, which would have happened if they just kept launching. Does that now make better sense to you?
BaronIveagh wrote:The problem is making sure it's on the beach they use. It's not something you can just pick up and move. It's range is around 60,000km, as it's the same a defense lance in bfg.
So you're saying this turret (which I kinda doubt will be very prevalent on Imperial worlds) is somehow able to cover each and every spot on land, but does not extend to oceans?
Nah, guess we'll just have to disagree on the capabilities and distribution of such defense platforms.
BaronIveagh wrote:The problem is you're assuming the weak point must be on land.
No, I'm assuming that certain areas on the land will offer just as good a spot as the oceans. With less hassle, less time, and less waste of (material) resources.
BaronIveagh wrote:Actually guided missiles are used by those IoM orbiting space ships. Please consult Battlefleet Gothic: Armada and FFG's Battlefleet Koronus.
I did not doubt the IoM would use guided missiles at all. They have these on the tabletop, too, after all.
What I was saying is they may not be as capable/accurate as you think, so that bombardment still requires a barrage rather than some single super-accurate tactical rocket like modern-day cruise missiles. And kilometer-long starships would surely have much bigger armouries to carry the necessary ammunition, rather than some hypothetical surface ship or sub that is able to launch a single wave and then needs to be rearmed.
Just a theory, of course. Like I said, I like to look for explanations for GW's writing rather than ripping it apart - at least most of the time I find it possible, although we certainly all draw our own lines.
I won't consider consulting FFG's books on the subject, though - I know they can deviate from GW's vision as much as any novel, so to me there is little point for me in mixing the two, at least not for such discussions. If you happen to believe in them, then fine, but then there is the possibility that we are simply operating on two different levels of fluff. We possibly do already, anyways, considering this debate.
Eetion wrote:Your missing the point. Iv said several times against Orbital emplacements. That the water navy would be of more use as command and control facilities. Both of the capabilities you mentioned require Orbit. If that is the case, any space vessel exposes itself to the entirety of the planets orbital defence network. If this is significant, moving away from orbit and using Command and Control planetside is more reliable after wet navy deployment, as it is landing in a more lightly defended area compared to any land deployment,.
Once a few Orbital defence problems can be taken out, the fleet can move into orbit and act with more freedom, and deploy more significant land assets
The ships of any invasion force have to enter low atmosphere anyways if they wish to deploy anything, be them bombs, ground forces or any of your precious hypothetical surface ships.
You suggest they fly into hell and hold orbit for long enough to put down a bunch of boats, and then just leave again until the coast is (literally) clear. I suggest they bring their ships into position and launch dropships together with an orbital strike against any defensive installations. Because once the heat is on and the hammer is coming down, a swift strike will be able to assert Imperial dominance within mere hours rather than some dragged-out campaign in which the Navy will be subjected to enemy fire without having the opportunity to bring its own voidshielded starship guns to bear.
I can only say again, if people feel a "need" for such a classic kind of warfare in their own interpretation of the fluff ... hell, go for it. Evidently, a number of novels already do. Just don't expect GW to follow suit.
It really pays to double-check everything people state on these forums.
By the way, you don't happen to have a citation for what you suggested the Codex Citystrike would say?
I'd have to dig it out, Cities of Death(not Citystrike) is already in a box waiting for the movers.
Lynata wrote: It represented "a real threat" to the drop pods they had launched, as evidently they got downed. Deployment range for orbital bombardment and troop deployment is actually equal. The text makes it fairly clear that the attacking Astartes underestimated the defence potential of this world, however. The Inquisitor then points out that these unexpected guns were a trap laid by the CSMs, and I'm going to assume the command code that ultimately silenced them was some sort of power grid shutdown sequence for the facilities that housed these emplacements.
Orbital strike and drop pod range are not equal. Drop pods can be launched from high orbit. Orbital bombardment has to be done from low orbit (Battlefleet Koronus pg 133, also BFG, but I'd have to unpack it to cite it for you).
It sounds a lot like they sent a deactivation signal rather than cut the power. 'Within the hour the automated defenses swiveled downwards and fell silent, their machine spirits coerced into submission by the Mechanicus priest's deft signals."
With better recon, I assume the Marines would have simply selected a different deployment site a couple kilometers outside the hive (because hive =/= hive world), or, more likely, would have spent half an hour or so shelling the LZ before sending their pods down.
Let me ask something: how far away do you think low orbit is? On Earth it's 2000 km. A hive is typically five to ten km high. Landing five km away from it is probably not going to do much. I'm going to state that orbital bombardment will take a significantly longer time that a half hour. (Mostly because it takes a given orbital bombardment weapon a half hour to reload, but also because all three strike cruisers were loaded with lances, which actually hit a very small area.)
They don't. At least the text does not suggest they did. It mentions they came under heavy fire, but since the book only talks of three pods exploding I suppose the rest managed to land, with the Brother Marines they were carrying now having to fight under-strength. The Space Marines were forced to re-think their strategy, as the text puts it, simply because they could not afford to lose three or more pods with every wave, which would have happened if they just kept launching. Does that now make better sense to you?
Not in the least, as it states that the first drop pods to reach ground didn't do so until after the AA guns were deactivated. This does imply that no one made is down before this point.
Lynata wrote: So you're saying this turret (which I kinda doubt will be very prevalent on Imperial worlds) is somehow able to cover each and every spot on land, but does not extend to oceans?
Wrong, and also: wtf? No, what it reaches out to is the limit of the horizon. (Since you can't shoot through the planet.) Since they're land based fixed positions, if there's good coverage from them, the most likely blind spots would be over any sizable body of water.
Lynata wrote: No, I'm assuming that certain areas on the land will offer just as good a spot as the oceans. With less hassle, less time, and less waste of (material) resources.
That would be entirely dependent on terrain. On geologically 'young' worlds, you're right. On 'old' worlds, no, it wouldn't. On 'Ocean' worlds, absolutely not.
Lynata wrote: I did not doubt the IoM would use guided missiles at all. They have these on the tabletop, too, after all.
What I was saying is they may not be as capable/accurate as you think, so that bombardment still requires a barrage rather than some single super-accurate tactical rocket like modern-day cruise missiles. And kilometer-long starships would surely have much bigger armouries to carry the necessary ammunition, rather than some hypothetical surface ship or sub that is able to launch a single wave and then needs to be rearmed.
... No, because Deathstrike missiles were launched from Helsreach as close support for defenders at Hive Volcanus during the Third Armageddon War. It doesn't say they wiped out the defenders doing this, so that's pretty good accuracy. They only scatter about 20 yards at scale, IIRC, in game. Pretty good for something that can be loaded with a vortex weapon to obliterate a few km of city. In Storm of Iron, a planetary defense torpedo is used as an ICBM and hits a target a few hundred yards wide. According to the description of how torps work in BFG, Imperial torps are highly accurate seekers, but have short sensor range. They can only really 'home' on a target they're within a few thousand km of, as opposed to Eldar and Tau, which will chase you from across the damn map. This is why they hit when in base contact. The base of the ship representing the limits of both 'dumb' torp sensors and range of a ships defensive turrets.
not that the Imperium doesn't also have much fancier seeking torps, but they're rare.
And, actually, a destroyer has, to scale, an armory about the same size as the one on a real world fleet carrier. Someone over on FFG's site worked it out based on the volume of an Iconoclast vs the volume of a Ford class.
I won't consider consulting FFG's books on the subject, though - I know they can deviate from GW's vision as much as any novel, so to me there is little point for me in mixing the two, at least not for such discussions. If you happen to believe in them, then fine, but then there is the possibility that we are simply operating on two different levels of fluff. We possibly do already, anyways, considering this debate.
FFG is under tighter scrutiny than BL is. I'd take their stuff slightly after GWs and before BL.
).
