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.

Do you think that Imperial Guard strategies are outdated in 40k?

For I am sure that they are doing more than just charge on a open field toward enemy or fighting like 18 century troops.

And what would you suggest for improvement in this area?

No, they aren't.

They don't actually use those strategies...
Some do e.g. Chenkov.
But apart from him a lot of Guard commanders are fairly savvy otherwise the guard would get nowhere.

^Correct. Guard tactics, which are often trench warfare, weight of firepower, outnumbering the foe are GOOD tactics to use against 40k enemies. Current tactics would be hopeless against a horde of Orkz.

Lots of 40k artwork and fiction presents battles as being fought by big masses of men charging around shouler-to-shoulder. There's too much fantasy stuff in the setting for it to be about "realistic" tactics. 40k is not serious military business, don't sweat about it.

Few basic thruts about IG:

Strategies require schooled men, which IG regiments dont have (you become an IG soldier by reading a little manual about fighting).

Strategies require skillful generals. IG generals die constantly and new are recruited at an constant rate so they wont gain any experience.

Most strategies require expensive equipment. IG regiments dont have money for this kind of stuff (their generals normally spend their money for booze and cigars)

Most IG generals dont care about the lives of their men, only about earning medals. For an space marine commander the basic troopers life is irreplaceble, IG commanders think their troopers as stupid animals who can do something if terrified enough.

To sum it up, most IG generals have never heard about the word of "strategy". Just sent troopers to their deaths and let the tanks do the job.

Source?
Clearly the Guard use strategies and tactics.
Generals do not die constantly, in fact most of them live for a couple of hundred years.
Strategies do not require expensive equipment.
IG officers are trained for their posts.

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:Few basic thruts about IG:

Strategies require schooled men, which IG regiments dont have (you become an IG soldier by reading a little manual about fighting).

Strategies require skillful generals. IG generals die constantly and new are recruited at an constant rate so they wont gain any experience.

Most strategies require expensive equipment. IG regiments dont have money for this kind of stuff (their generals normally spend their money for booze and cigars)

Most IG generals dont care about the lives of their men, only about earning medals. For an space marine commander the basic troopers life is irreplaceble, IG commanders think their troopers as stupid animals who can do something if terrified enough.

To sum it up, most IG generals have never heard about the word of "strategy". Just sent troopers to their deaths and let the tanks do the job.

Most of that is wrong.

Well we know that the guard like to fight in mainly static lines very much like WWI trench warfare. However the authors fail to understand why trench warfare was so hard to break then. When a line can be flanked it can be broken, when enemies can drop in behind you the line can be broken, in WWI the lines crossed the continent, and getting behind the enemy in numbers large enough to matter was impossible.

In 40k you have drop pods, teleporters, jump packs, aerial transports, and tanks able to survive long enough to reach and breach the lines. Thus their strategy will never accomplish the goal in a way that works well. They can win by sheer weight of numbers sometimes, but just as often they die to the man and the world falls or needs to be cleansed.

While I agree the lack of training in the guard even among higher ups is partly to blame. Their entire doctrine is flawed and designed to make them a worse fighting force if they ever rebel. Thus different disciplines, such as armor or flyboys, dislike the foot sloggers and aren't able to give them integrated support on anything aside from a divisional level or higher. This makes it rather hard for the combined arms of the guard to press on together.

Also, lacking basics like proper transport vehicles is another issue. Some guard forces simply have no mechanized infantry, or so little as for it to not matter. This isn't a matter of their leaders spending money on needless things, but a factor of equipment being lost at a high rate, replacements taking forever, and the fact that the admech often places restrictions on what can be made where.

In all the guard function much like a combination of Civil War and WWI era troops. Civil War in that they are often under supplied, and WWI for the reasons of poor doctrine and tactics. In all give a present day leader the production, equipment, and men that 40k have and watch them become instantly more effective.

And apply present day tactics and doctrines to the Guard and watch them fail hopelessly. Guard tactics work for the setting, where it's largely pitched battles, often involving large fortifications, trenches and large open terrain.

Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.

iproxtaco wrote:And apply present day tactics and doctrines to the Guard and watch them fail hopelessly. Guard tactics work for the setting, where it's largely pitched battles, often involving large fortifications, trenches and large open terrain.

Of course, I never said to use modern small unit tactics or that we should start flying COIN ops over the enemy with prop planes. I said that modern commanders would be able to produce better strategies, and make better use of manpower and material than what we see in most of 40k. Mostly by the simple virtue of not being written by somebody who knows nothing about the military.

I've already shown why static trenches are a poor choice but let me explain in a more comprehensive way what I mean.

To start with, the trench was so effective in WWI and to a limited extent WWII because the artillery was so bad that even day long barrages of trench lines would often fail to dislodge or even inflict great harm on the entrenched foe. This was partially due to poor fire control, a lack of proper shell fuzing, and the very explosives being used in the shells. If you hide in a trench today, you just die standing still. Modern forces, let alone forces in the future, have guided weapons meaning rounds on target will hit the target. We have proper fuzes for air bursts and penetrating rounds. We have observation capabilities that make trying to hide pointless. These are all things that 40k should have, them not having them is either stupidity on their part, poor writing, or some combination. As an example of firepower, we have tank rounds that are fired through sand berms to nail tanks at range. If they'd had those in WWI then they would have simply fired through the trench at the guns or the important sites inside. We also have easily deployed, accurate, bunker busting weapons of conventional and nuclear armament meaning that you're not going to be safe hiding under dirt that doesn't even slow such a weapon.

Of course this is ignoring that a flanked trench is a breached trench and flanking in 40k is easy. It's the Astartes bread and butter, and many other forces are also easily able to do the same. The Eldar have the webway, fast tanks, and flyers that can pass a trench. The Dark Eldar are the same. The Tau make use of flyers as well. Necrons can teleport monoliths to where they are needed and can do the same with their soldiers. Daemons can teleport into your midst. CSM have many of the same capabilities as the Astartes. The Tyranids use tunnels, or positions taken before the battle and also have pods. Even the Orks have been known to flank the enemy thanks to Kommando teams and other assets. The Guard and Sisters of battle have flyers, drop ships, and the like as well so if they ever used them they would be better off.

purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.

Unfortunately, this portrayal of the IG isn't grimdark enough for the Imperial Guard "fans" and they feel the need to continue with the "into the grinder" nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, my response perhaps came off as a bit confrontational.
I agree completely with the point about GW writers. Whilst massive pitched battles against Orkz requires things like weight of fire and trenches, which are easy to set-up with the man power of the IG, the way it's written makes the Guard look incompetent, which I'm sure generally isn't true outside of these few examples.
Trenches in 40k should be ineffective, in fact, by any reasoning, they are that way, with the mobile warfare of the setting. I guess it only fits with the general concept of cheap and quick is better.

Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.

While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.

And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.

But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.

Canadian 5th wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:And apply present day tactics and doctrines to the Guard and watch them fail hopelessly. Guard tactics work for the setting, where it's largely pitched battles, often involving large fortifications, trenches and large open terrain.

Of course, I never said to use modern small unit tactics or that we should start flying COIN ops over the enemy with prop planes. I said that modern commanders would be able to produce better strategies, and make better use of manpower and material than what we see in most of 40k. Mostly by the simple virtue of not being written by somebody who knows nothing about the military.

I've already shown why static trenches are a poor choice but let me explain in a more comprehensive way what I mean.
*Snip*

I get why trenches are a bad idea, you don't need to explain further.
The Guards standard tactic isn't just to start building trenches. They use it as a delaying tactic or whilst they are laying siege to an installation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.

While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.

And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.

But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

purplefood wrote:
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

It has broken us in just 3 months...and Iraq in just 1 day...

But again, we were broken because they destroyed almost all of our infrastructure... When you are targeting bridges, markets, schools, hospitals, convoys... air power can be very effective.

Not everybody in this thread will know the information that I gave.

Also, is somebody going to show examples of guard actions not defined by trenches, slow advances under artillery fire, and poor command? Even the good commanders are often hampered by poor command at either a higher or lower level. Just look at how bad things got when the Tanith 1st were nearly wiped out by the Patricians due to infighting and a lack of respect.

Air power alone did not break Iraq in one day.

The point he's trying to make is that laying siege to something wouldn't work if the besieged party can tunnel, teleport, or fly over your siege lines!

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)

Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.

Warmastersolon wrote:The point he's trying to make is that laying siege to something wouldn't work if the besieged party can tunnel, teleport, or fly over your siege lines!

Erm, we get that, no one is arguing the point. What are you talking about?

iproxtaco wrote:Air power alone did not break Iraq in one day.

You are right, the marines and tanks moved so slowly that they reached the capital in 3 days with little to no resistance... I wonder why....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Canadian 5th wrote:

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)

Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.

You forgotten Nazi Germany ( the bombing crippled their industry ).

Canadian 5th wrote:Not everybody in this thread will know the information that I gave.

Also, is somebody going to show examples of guard actions not defined by trenches, slow advances under artillery fire, and poor command? Even the good commanders are often hampered by poor command at either a higher or lower level. Just look at how bad things got when the Tanith 1st were nearly wiped out by the Patricians due to infighting and a lack of respect.

In fighting that bad is rare.
1)Captain Lurenz, ordered that some of the regiment's Chimeras be lightened by stripping down their armour, giving his raiders a transport that could carry them quickly across the dunes. This proved successful in defeating the Eldar and since the battle, the First Patrol Company of the Tallarn 16th has been known as the "Gravediggers".5
2)During the Battle for the Ruins of Esko's Moon, Al'rahem and his forces faced off against the Eldar who were using similar hit and run tactics. Al'rahem however won over the Eldar by creating a exacting crossfire with a platoon of his men after trekking halfway across the moon to the ruins and striking at the lightly defended and illassumed unapproachable southern pass of the ruins.
3)The Catachan 18th fought Tyranids in a seven year campaign on Koralkal VIII, during which they covered themselves with the ichor of the Lictors to mask their scent. They subsequently spent two years in decontamination before they were allowed to return to active duty
4)The Catachan 24th are known for their extensive use of traps. They destroyed Warlord Krakskull's entire Ork horde by luring them into a booby-trapped ravine using baiter squads.
5)Cadian 888th shock troops during the reclaimation of the shrine world of Katur (Cadian Blood)
6)The attack on Cirenholm
7)The attack on Ouranberg
There are a lot more as well...

Germany wasn't broken by air power, bombing was actually bad at disrupting industry simply due to not hitting the target. Germany had no chance even if no bombs were dropped.

Canadian 5th wrote:

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)

Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.

Even if your claims were 100% true, out of all modern wars in the 20th century, apparently air power totally dominated... uh, three and a half?

Needless to say, also, your claim of "air power broke them" discounts the efforts of the Marines and Navy (Japan), EVERYBODY (Iraq, both times) and the British army (Falklands). Some ground pounders (myself included) may take offense at the suggestion that we didn't do anything in Iraq.

As far as Guard tactics go, I can't actually think of a fluffy time when all they did was "set up trenches." In Desert Raiders, they defend a camp full of supplies while sending out fast moving armor and walkers to engage the enemy with hit-and-run tactics. In all the Gaunt's Ghosts books, they engage the enemy in small infantry firefights using the basic tenets of fire suppression, advancing under fire, and flank attacks. They also engage in sophisticated anti-armor tactics. In Gunheads, Imperial armor engages the Orks in a similar manner to modern armor, engaging them at extended range and utilizing fire, shock, and maneuver to cut the Orks to pieces. In Storm of Iron, the Imperial Guard is finally seen hiding behind trenches.... except when they sortie out to destroy the enemy siege guns, which is a rather successful night action in which one of the 3 Grand Company commanders of the Iron Warriors loses an arm to a Guard officer! The last Guard book I read was Fifteen Hours, and it does indeed feature Guard in trenches. But they are fighting Orks, so there is no reason to do anything else.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)

Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.

Even if your claims were 100% true, out of all modern wars in the 20th century, apparently air power totally dominated... uh, three and a half?

Needless to say, also, your claim of "air power broke them" discounts the efforts of the Marines and Navy (Japan), EVERYBODY (Iraq, both times) and the British army (Falklands). Some ground pounders (myself included) may take offense at the suggestion that we didn't do anything in Iraq.

As far as Guard tactics go, I can't actually think of a fluffy time when all they did was "set up trenches." In Desert Raiders, they defend a camp full of supplies while sending out fast moving armor and walkers to engage the enemy with hit-and-run tactics. In all the Gaunt's Ghosts books, they engage the enemy in small infantry firefights using the basic tenets of fire suppression, advancing under fire, and flank attacks. They also engage in sophisticated anti-armor tactics. In Gunheads, Imperial armor engages the Orks in a similar manner to modern armor, engaging them at extended range and utilizing fire, shock, and maneuver to cut the Orks to pieces. In Storm of Iron, the Imperial Guard is finally seen hiding behind trenches.... except when they sortie out to destroy the enemy siege guns, which is a rather successful night action in which one of the 3 Grand Company commanders of the Iron Warriors loses an arm to a Guard officer! The last Guard book I read was Fifteen Hours, and it does indeed feature Guard in trenches. But they are fighting Orks, so there is no reason to do anything else.

You seem not to read so well, I said that it was a short list of battles where air power has been important and has been a definite deciding factor in the cessation of war. Japan was ended by the dropping of the atomic bombs, while ground forces and the navy took the airbase the nukes were sent from, had you not the Peacemaker bomber would have done the job anyway. In the pacific the navy and marines were only useful as a holding action while new bombers were being worked on. Iraq was softened up by air power each time, those abandoned tanks and planned defenses you passed on the way in, that was the flyboys. The Falklands were so under defended on the ground that not having air power would have been death due to the lack of AA sites on the island. A-Stan is much nicer to work in with drones overhead and they have killed many key targets so the boys on the ground didn't need to.

In the first Gaunt's Ghosts novel the enemy was hiding in trenches and the siege had lasted for a long while. Gaunt was sent in to die and only after the drumming started and the enemy guns stopped firing was the push started.

There are only 2 times in the entire Gaunts Ghosts novels that they are in trenches. Both times the Tanith prove it was an incorrect use of their skills by either winning the war entirely (As in the case of the first novel) or disabling a key asset (As in the case of the second instance)

Canadian 5th wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

A short list of nations broken by air power:
Japan
Iraq (Twice)
The Falklands (Partially)

Even when air power isn't the direct reason for a win anybody would rather fight under friendly skies than hostile ones.

Even if your claims were 100% true, out of all modern wars in the 20th century, apparently air power totally dominated... uh, three and a half?

Needless to say, also, your claim of "air power broke them" discounts the efforts of the Marines and Navy (Japan), EVERYBODY (Iraq, both times) and the British army (Falklands). Some ground pounders (myself included) may take offense at the suggestion that we didn't do anything in Iraq.

As far as Guard tactics go, I can't actually think of a fluffy time when all they did was "set up trenches." In Desert Raiders, they defend a camp full of supplies while sending out fast moving armor and walkers to engage the enemy with hit-and-run tactics. In all the Gaunt's Ghosts books, they engage the enemy in small infantry firefights using the basic tenets of fire suppression, advancing under fire, and flank attacks. They also engage in sophisticated anti-armor tactics. In Gunheads, Imperial armor engages the Orks in a similar manner to modern armor, engaging them at extended range and utilizing fire, shock, and maneuver to cut the Orks to pieces. In Storm of Iron, the Imperial Guard is finally seen hiding behind trenches.... except when they sortie out to destroy the enemy siege guns, which is a rather successful night action in which one of the 3 Grand Company commanders of the Iron Warriors loses an arm to a Guard officer! The last Guard book I read was Fifteen Hours, and it does indeed feature Guard in trenches. But they are fighting Orks, so there is no reason to do anything else.

You seem not to read so well, I said that it was a short list of battles where air power has been important and has been a definite deciding factor in the cessation of war. Japan was ended by the dropping of the atomic bombs, while ground forces and the navy took the airbase the nukes were sent from, had you not the Peacemaker bomber would have done the job anyway. In the pacific the navy and marines were only useful as a holding action while new bombers were being worked on. Iraq was softened up by air power each time, those abandoned tanks and planned defenses you passed on the way in, that was the flyboys. The Falklands were so under defended on the ground that not having air power would have been death due to the lack of AA sites on the island. A-Stan is much nicer to work in with drones overhead and they have killed many key targets so the boys on the ground didn't need to.

In the first Gaunt's Ghosts novel the enemy was hiding in trenches and the siege had lasted for a long while. Gaunt was sent in to die and only after the drumming started and the enemy guns stopped firing was the push started.

Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.

Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.

And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.

And yes, in that novel, the first one. Where everyone talks about how bad of a commander the man in charge is (implying that there are many better). One example does not a defining tactic make.

Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.

Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.

Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.

Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.

And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.

No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.

And yes, in that novel, the first one. Where everyone talks about how bad of a commander the man in charge is (implying that there are many better). One example does not a defining tactic make.

And having trench warfare specialist forces like Krieg means what now?