Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im in college and I started the discussion started by maybe many IG fans is what would happen if they came here my friend says that 100 modern soilders v 100 guardsman in an open field that the imperial guard would have no significant advantage.

Chapter Master Aeneas wrote:Im in college and I started the discussion started by maybe many IG fans is what would happen if they came here my friend says that 100 modern soilders v 100 guardsman in an open field that the imperial guard would have no significant advantage.

I would say it really depends on how the 40k sci fi weapons and equipment compare to real life ones. Since we don't have a real comparison to how a lasgun works, anything along these lines is pure conjecture.

Well, it'd be logical to assume that lasguns are lighter, easier to aim (by virtue of being lighter), and stronger than your average military rifle (at full power, a lasgun can blow limbs off). They're also much more accurate, by virtue of being laser weaponry.

Armour for the average gaurdsman is probably somewhat better than modern military armour. Either stronger or lighter, or a combination of both.

Fafnir wrote:Well, it'd be logical to assume that lasguns are lighter, easier to aim (by virtue of being lighter), and stronger than your average military rifle (at full power, a lasgun can blow limbs off). They're also much more accurate, by virtue of being laser weaponry.

Armour for the average gaurdsman is probably somewhat better than modern military armour. Either stronger or lighter, or a combination of both.

That's what I say but he wants to know in more detail why for example how the lasgun works and what flak ar
Our is made of

The other way to look at it is that the lasgun has the same stats as the autogun, which is an assault rifle. The weapons are therefore basically the same on both sides.

The IG are trained to fight without any initiative, obedient to the orders of their officers.

Modern troops are trained to use their initiative to cope with changing combat situations, and are far less reliant on their officers.

I think that because of this, the modern troops would quickly kill off the IG officers and take the men prisoner.

from what I read. Modern Rifles(Autoguns or stubbers) as they call them in Wh40k universe can be just as effective as any lasgun. The advantage of a lasgun is its a lot more durable cheaper and easier to maintain. I disagree with the armor, flak armor if the term is to be used in modern terms is designed to stop shrapnel, rather then bullets. As for a 100 vs 100 on even grounds it would rely on tactics.

IG tactics are loosely based on WWII Ideologies.

It would depend a lot on the IG in question, to be honest. Many are tied to orders from above, as Killkrazy pointed out. Others tend to operate only in very large formations with support.

Other IG are more independent minded. Catachans take initiative in the fluff.

It also depends on the soldiers in question. Comparing a Valhallan company to a modern US or Royal Marine company is very different from comparing Catachans to North Korean infantry.

That is partly true as in they are trained to follow orders without question but a guardsman squad could use their initiative due to being highly trained remember guardsmen train longer and harder

Modern troops would win, they have ACOG sights and are better trained. The reason IG are like that is that they need alot of men fast, they don't get as much training. Veterens are more comparible to modern troops who have had combat experiance I think.

I'd say that soldiers are soldiers even in future, so it would be about the equipment. Lasgun vs moder rifle.. I'd say lasgun wins. If it didn't, why the hell would they use them after 40000 years?
IG armour can give some protecting from genestealers too (with 6's ) and they can punch through tanks. I doubt modern armours can offer much protection from knives without hindering your movements.
So yeah.. IG wins.

Thunder555 wrote:I'd say that soldiers are soldiers even in future, so it would be about the equipment. Lasgun vs moder rifle.. I'd say lasgun wins. If it didn't, why the hell would they use them after 40000 years?

Logistics. One of the biggest advantages of the lasgun is that it doesn't fire ammuntion, it can simply be recharged from nearly any power source.

IG armour can give some protecting from genestealers too (with 6's ) and they can punch through tanks. I doubt modern armours can offer much protection from knives without hindering your movements.
So yeah.. IG wins.

Modern militaries dont' worry about knives for the same reason they dont' worry about stopping crossbow bolts: they're rarely encountered in battle.

IG would win, they have 38k years of more fighting than todays troops, plus the LRBT will just steam roll any thing we have, the Vendetta will blow our tanks to dust and any other goodie you can think of. The Guard just have more toys than our boys and they know how to use them better.
Don't get me worng, we'll give it a go but in the end the IG are just more hard core.

Polonius wrote:

Thunder555 wrote:I'd say that soldiers are soldiers even in future, so it would be about the equipment. Lasgun vs moder rifle.. I'd say lasgun wins. If it didn't, why the hell would they use them after 40000 years?

Logistics. One of the biggest advantages of the lasgun is that it doesn't fire ammuntion, it can simply be recharged from nearly any power source.

IG armour can give some protecting from genestealers too (with 6's ) and they can punch through tanks. I doubt modern armours can offer much protection from knives without hindering your movements.
So yeah.. IG wins.

Modern militaries dont' worry about knives for the same reason they dont' worry about stopping crossbow bolts: they're rarely encountered in battle.

Oh, point was that IG armour is more likely to stop a bullet than modern day armour is able to stop a laser blast. And recharging the lasgun is a good point. I remember reading that some pattern lasguns can be charged even with sunlight.

Theres a Creed joke in here somewhere.

Thunder555 wrote:Oh, point was that IG armour is more likely to stop a bullet than modern day armour is able to stop a laser blast. And recharging the lasgun is a good point. I remember reading that some pattern lasguns can be charged even with sunlight.

Well, any game that has had rules and fluff for lasguns and autoguns has had them be very simillar, and the autogun is described as an assault rifle shooting caseless ammo.

However, where I think there is a big potential difference, is the rise of body armor in the 40th millenium. Modern bullets aren't exactly armor piercing or high caliber. It's possible that lasguns do have far more stopping power with no corresponding drop in rate of fire or accuracy.

Autoguns and stubbers having the same S in-game is irrelevant. Terminator Armour and Artificier Armour both give 2+ saves. Guess which one is tougher?

I think the 'leadership' factor is getting a bit underplayed here. I don't mean leadership in terms of who's got better sergeants, etc, but rather in terms of 'we lost 8/10 men and we're still charging with bayonets fixed'.

It's been a long, long time since two militaries of roughly equivalent technology level faced each other in open combat. By our standards, IG infantry are probably very near to fearless. Losses that we'd consider a horrific disaster (30%+) are probably within IG acceptable tolerances.

For 100 guys on each side, facing across an open field, with roughly equivalent kit, I have to think that IG win through willingness to lose more bodies.

That's a really great point. IG will literally keep moving and let the casualties fall. Few modern militaries would do that.

Tactics vs firepower vs philosophy is what it comes down to. Heres a breakdown of a straight troops vs troops, no armor or support vehicles.

Firepower:
IG - Roughly equal to a WWII company at the 100 man level. Has lasguns, grenades, some heavy weapons (.30 stubbers, .50 autocannons, flamers, rocket launchers), possibly some very heavy weapons (lascannons, heavy bolters). Wears Flak armor, which is capable of stopping multiple autogun rounds and partially stopping lasgun rounds. Effective against knives, etc.

US military - 100 man unit operates in seperate squads instead of a large unit. Has light to medium autoguns in the .30 or smaller range, light machine guns, grenades, limited antitank missiles, maybe one .50 machine gun per 100 troops, possibly a 40mm grenade launcher also. Wears light (relatively) flack vests that can stop shrapnel and small arms fire, but not high powered assault rifle rounds or large caliber rounds. Zero protection against knives, etc, unless ceramic inserts are used, increasing weight.

Tactics:
IG - Tactics vary wildly depending on which regiment is selected for the comparison. Majority of IG fight like WWII troops, large scale battles with mobile but very defined lines of combat. Trench warfare is common, but small squad actions are also common. General operation orders are strictly enforced by commissars and officers, small squads are often permitted wide leeway in how to execute those orders as long as the mission is accomplished. Engaging the enemy with extreme prejudice and little regard for collateral damage is accepted as the way things are done.

US military - Tactics are streamlined for fast, hard hitting units. Squad based action with individuals operating specific assignments are common. Orders are more general (mostly) with units being allowed leeway in interpreting orders and execution. Trench warfare obsolete after introduction of blitzkreig, or shock and awe, warfare. Troops are trained to hit hard and keep going, doing minimal collateral damage with precision shooting. Encouraged to use minimal force necessary to accomplish the mission.

Philosophy:
IG - More is better. The more troops, the more firepower, the more armor, the more everything you throw at a problem, the faster it stops being a problem. Zero regard for lives or collateral damage, IG is completely willing to level a home, village, city or planet to accomplish the goal, and spend as many lives as required to that end.

US military - Less is more. Precision, lightning strikes with minimal force and maximum shock value. Snipers, aimed fire and non-lethal grenades combined with shock assaults are the bread and butter. Will go out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, and even to ensure that enemy combatants can be captured. Avoids collateral damage whenever possible. Will retreat from battle if casualties become excessive (more than 30-40%), typically to get reinforcements.


For a level comparison, IG wins in Armor and Firepower. Tactics are harder to compare, as certain units would fare differently that other units on both sides. The US military has a better Philosophy, especially for long term civilization, as they try to not damage the infrastructure of wherever they are fighting. However, this leads to battles and wars being drawn out much longer than if a total war mentality was used like the IG.

Polonius wrote:That's a really great point. IG will literally keep moving and let the casualties fall. Few modern militaries would do that.

That was the Soviet method at the start of the Great Patriotic War. They did very badly using those tactics.

Here is the description and TO&E for a US Army rifle company from a light infantry division. I chose this because it has no organic vehicles.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/07017L000.htm

If you want a 100 man unit the three rifle platoons plus three platoon HQs provide a total of 81 + 15 men equipped with

Six heavy (?) machine-guns (possibly 7.62mm ?)
18 grenade launchers (40mm underslung type)
18 light machine-guns (M249)
78 assault rifles (M4)
Grenades and bayonets are also carried but not listed. Some men may have a pistol.

If weapons from the company HQ and heavy weapons platoons are to be included, then grenade MGs, 50-cal MGs, 60mm and 81mm mortars are available.

2 words: Air Support

A modern military will have absolutely no problem taking out an army of IG or SM or any xenos army you can think of simply due to the air support available.

All of the IG tanks would be destroyed miles and miles before they ever reached the battlefield.

That's assuming the IG doesnt bring in their own air support in the form of Valks, Vendettas and the Imperial Navy (although depending on the argument, it could be said that the IN is a separate organisation than the IG). Hydras might spell doom for any attempted bomb runs (although their effectiveness against our aircrafts is unclear, they certainly chew up 40k aircrafts though). If the IN is involved, the IG would possibly have orbital support too, especially drop troops.

Grakmar wrote:2 words: Air Support

A modern military will have absolutely no problem taking out an army of IG or SM or any xenos army you can think of simply due to the air support available.

All of the IG tanks would be destroyed miles and miles before they ever reached the battlefield.

+1

Totally agree. That's QFT.

Let's compare IG and some western world military.

The training and the experience of the guardsmen will depend on his world of origin. If its cadia, our boys are pretty much busted in terms of experience or combat training. If it's some backwater world of the IoM, we would not have much to worry about.

The equipment of guardsmen also depends on their world of origin. A flak armour will probably stop a couple of 7.62 mm bullets before breaking. The problem is that ALL of our modern soldiers are equipped with automatic weapons with a firing rate of rouglhly 700 bullets/min. This means that a sustained burst of bullets from a modern assault rifle will make a mockery of the guard's armour.
Lasguns are powerful, but are semi-auto weapons with a very limited rate of fire. Which means that they will have fewer chances of touching our boys.

The tactics are also important. Guard fighting tactics are inspired of WWII tactics, which are no match for modern armies' manoeuvers and tactics.

Finally, what about the guard's armour support? All their tanks are big and powerful. Massively powerful usually. An M1 Abrams will field a 105 mm cannon and 12.7 mm machineguns as secondaries and co-ax. A LRBT will field a 120 mm cannon as main, probably lascannons as sponsons and hull-mounted weapons, and maybe even a pintle-mounted storm bolter and a co-ax heavy bolter. It is clear that in terms of firepower, we're beaten. But a LRBT is big, really big. It has roughly the same weight than an abrams (the abrams is a bit heavier), but is a lot taller, with big, flat flanks. On the other hand, an abrams has a relatively low profile with oblique flanks, for a better resistance to armour-piercing rounds. I think a LRBT would get an airstrike in the face before even managing to touch our tanks.

I say we win.

Well the scenario is 100 infantry vs 100 infantry.

Fine. Screw my last paragraph away.

If if you read my previous points, we still win! It's gonna be harder without our air support though.

Lasguns can fire full auto, and have more rounds per magazine than an assault rifle. And our troops are not trained to fire full auto, they are specifically trained to NOT waste ammo that way. The rate of fire that our guns can deliver is immaterial, since they almost never use mroe than three round bursts.

There is no practical basis to compare ceranite armor against an Abrams Chobham armor, but offhand Id say the ceramite gives much greater thickness and protection on a pound for pound basis. So, while an Abrams may have a smaller profile, it would probably take 3-4 shots for an Abrams to kill a LRBT.

Introducing airpower, sorry, we lose. Our air to air missiles are designed to shoot down unarmored planes, and the armor piercing air to ground missiles cant be used against aircraft. Add in lascannons and while we may not get shot down, we would be forced away from the battlefield.

In the end, however, I say that it would be the mindset of the IG that would beat us. The ability to wage total, unrestricted war would simply crack our units morale. A very close comparison would be to put the IG next to WWII marine corps. In the pacific, we had to learn unrestricted war to beat the Japanese, including using nuclear weapons and firebombing civilian targets. And we were preparing to lose, not commit to fight but LOSE, 150,000 troops in an invasion of the Japanese main island if the nukes didnt work.

Shoot a Phoenix missile at a marauder bomber. It may be armored, it will NOT survive the strike. It is absolutely impossible. The hull and the superstructure may survive the explosion, but the wings and the turbojets will be screwed. That means one marauder bomber down. Same thing with thunderbolts and lightnings. In addition, no imperial aircraft can match the speed of medern days jets. I don't know why, it sounds really stupid to me, but GW decided to create imperial planes that way. The only imperial plane capable of reaching the speed of an F-22, for example, is the lightning (2400kph, roughly mach 2).
Talking of F-22, the IoM does not seem to psess stealth fighters tech. Which means their planes will have to take ours down with autocannons and lascannons, and visually acquire our plane. i bet a thunderbolt would be blasted apart before being able to see our planes.
In addition, thunderbolts and lightings are heavy, and are definitely less manoeuvrable and aerodynamic than modern jet fighters. Which means that even in a dogfight, our planes would have a good chance of taking down the ennemy aircraft (not saying it's gonna be easy though).

But still, as killcrazy said, the original post was infantry against infantry. Which would be 50/50 in my opinion.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:That's assuming the IG doesnt bring in their own air support in the form of Valks, Vendettas and the Imperial Navy (although depending on the argument, it could be said that the IN is a separate organisation than the IG). Hydras might spell doom for any attempted bomb runs (although their effectiveness against our aircrafts is unclear, they certainly chew up 40k aircrafts though). If the IN is involved, the IG would possibly have orbital support too, especially drop troops.

The problem is that Valks and Vendettas move incredibly slowly. Average walking speed is 3 or 4 mph, which translates to 6" in game. That means that Valks and Vendettas move at a top speed of 24mph. A UH-60 has a max speed of 173mph armed with AGM-114 with a range of 8000m. Assuming 1:35 scale, this translates into a 40k range of almost 9000". Even the GAU-19 gatling gun has a 40k range of over 2000" (effective range, not maximum). A single UH-60 would easily outmaneuver and outgun massive squadrons of Valks. And fixed-wing aircraft that get way faster than that and with more firepower.

And, Hydras are a terrible anti-aircraft weapon. They actually rely on actually shooting a visible target! Modern aircraft can easily fire over the horizon, which makes Hydras COMPLETELY worthless.

The IG would put up a decent fight against a WWI era army, possibly even WWII, but modern rocketry makes everything the IG has obsolete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for a pure infantry vs infantry. An M16 has an effective range of 550m, 618" in 40k terms. IG infantry would be dead long before they could get in range (for comparison, a lasgun has an equivalent RL range of 21m)

There is also something called Game Balance. A valk can't more incredibly fast in game because the ability to outflank & hit any inch of the board while still firing would be ridiculous. Also the valk plays a similar role to a helicopter. Flying in, delivering troops & providing close air support. Comparing it to a fighter jet shows a gross misunderstanding of battlefield roles.

Many people have the "Go america / Insert country, we win because we are the awesome." We aren't. A 40k AT missile (Krak) has only a 1/6 chance of GLANCING the frontal armor of a leman russ. Their tanks are better than ours. We also care about civilian casualities, they don't. We have LIMITED resources. If they are hitting us from space you can damn well be sure they have a nigh unlimited supply line.
People mention Air Superiority, lol. I thought this was Army Vs Army, if you are bringing in the Airforce, they have the navy their planes are better than ours. They control space, they win. any way you look at it, as with the tyranid threat, we. are. boned.

I say the IG knocks us on our modern-day butts....

This is the difference between the overall quality of the IG (millions of Regiments, all trained to very similar tolerances, the Infantry Uplifting Primer,...........Doctrine is different based on planet so there is a wide range....Shock troops, Drop Troops, jungle fighters, City fighters......) vs the Overall quality of our modern day warriors.....Some countries have excellent training and tactical doctrines.....some do not.

There are only a few nations with Battle hardened troops readily available....The US, Iraq (Both Sides), Afghanistan, Russia, some of our NATO allies....various guerilla units... The IG is Battle Hardened and faces things that would make our modern day troops crap their collective pants....Tyranids, Orks, Dark Eldar......our troops wouldnt stand up to a full WAAAGH charge....

IG wins.