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.

For you. what constitutes Firebase for IG? and what is the 'definition' of it?
1. How many Earthshaker/Basilisks (models) should each have at minimum? 2 ? or 6?
2. Is Mortar also neccessary?
3. Backstory of a product called 'Imperial Firebase' GW had launched long time ago and it's now OOP .. GW also not producing plastic bulkhead anymore. what is the product that replaces that bulkhead?
a. Imperial City set (undamaged building pieces)
b. Planetstrike scenery sets.

4. Does this one fits the definition of 'Imperial Firebase'?

. for me it looks too WW2 to be Firebase unless that the ferrocrete structure can be airlifted to the orbit
http://www.ironhands.com/firebase.htm


^ this firebase (or a bit more likely... fortress) only have two gunpits,

^ can this one qualify? it has two gunpits and each mounted mortar instead of howitzer.

I'd imagine that this information might be in an Imperial Armor book. That said I have no idea and those firebases seem quite small for a full scale campaign unless there are banks of dozens of them.

A common 'battery' of Earthshaker cannons, Manticore Missile Launchers, Hydra Flak Turrets, or Medusa Siege Mortars is three guns in a stationary position.

This will usually have a force of Guardsmen equivalent to two platoons to act as perimeter security, with automated defenses such as hard-wired Servitor manned guns and Tarantula Sentry Guns to fill in some of the other gaps in the defenses.

A vietnam era firebase would usually have a battery of 6 105mm or 155mm howitzers, with accompanying platoon of infantry, hq buildings, medic and landing facilities.

A battery of 3-6 artillery pieces would seem about right for IG. Add in a few Ig platoons.

Mortars can be used for a firebase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ninja'd by Kanluwen.

I think Imperial Guard firebases should have bunkers in Dawn of War I style and/or Bastions and some sensor arrays. I don't think many Earthshakers are necessary for it and mortars are old-fashioned but heavy bolter and Hydra turrets. And the base doesn't require any civilian buildings, ruined or intact.

Farseer Petriel wrote:I think Imperial Guard firebases should have bunkers in Dawn of War I style and/or Bastions and some sensor arrays. I don't think many Earthshakers are necessary for it and mortars are old-fashioned but heavy bolter and Hydra turrets. And the base doesn't require any civilian buildings, ruined or intact.

"Firebases" are not "fortresses".

And yes. Earthshakers or other indirect artillery pieces are necessary in order for it to be a firebase.

The term "firebase"(also known as a Fire Support Base[FSB]) refers to a military encampment which is tasked with providing indirect artillery support to troops operating within an area.
You can't do that with heavy bolters or Hydras, and mortars are of limited use for that but are useful in defending the FSB proper.

Then yes, they should have Eartshakers but mobile artillery will be more effective.

That's incredibly arguable.

For supporting a war being fought with constant motion--yes, mobile artillery is "more effective".

For supporting a stationary war, firebases are far more effective. The ability to have areas of responsibility for these firebases, and the ability to be able to raise a single base and have three to six guns opening up with a constant barrage (not limited by the ammunition supplies, like that carried by the mobile artillery pieces into combat, mind you) is far more effective than one or two mobile artillery pieces which can be crippled or disabled in the field.

The question is does the Imperium have need in stationary war. They have enouch technologies to make preliminary bombardment from orbit and then bring infantry to cities to purge remaining enemies.

Farseer Petriel wrote:The question is does the Imperium have need in stationary war.

You're assuming "stationary positions" to mean "trench warfare".
Don't make that assumption.

They have enough technology to make preliminary bombardment from orbit

So what?
Orbital bombardments are nice and all, but there's a limited window for bombardments to take place in(the ship has to be at just the right position in orbit, the crews will have a certain amount of time to slam home as much fire as they can, etc) and it does not allow for close support of troops.

Artillery in fixed positions or on mobile chassis do allow for that close support of troops, as do gunships like the Vulture or close support aircraft like the Thunderbolt.

and then bring infantry to cities to purge remaining enemies.

Yes. They do that.

It does not mean that they will not have fixed batteries of artillery behind their lines, ready to pound particularly strong pockets of resistance into the ground.

Kanluwen wrote:So what?
Orbital bombardments are nice and all, but there's a limited window for bombardments to take place in(the ship has to be at just the right position in orbit, the crews will have a certain amount of time to slam home as much fire as they can, etc) and it does not allow for close support of troops.

They should do the bombardment before the troops are deployed, not after. And they can use not only spaceships, but airplanes too.
I wonder why Imperials can do Exterminatus but can't bomb the whole planet.

They can do the bombardments before or while troops are deployed.

The problem is that restricting yourself to just orbital bombardments because it's "technologically advanced" is silly.

The Imperial Navy does not answer to the Imperial Guard. If a Guard Company comes under heavy fire from say an Ork Waagh! which is holed up within a ruined city--then there is no guarantee that the Navy will respond with bombers or orbital fire.

The Guard, however, will respond with their artillery batteries on the ground.

Kanluwen wrote:They can do the bombardments before or while troops are deployed.

The problem is that restricting yourself to just orbital bombardments because it's "technologically advanced" is silly.

The Imperial Navy does not answer to the Imperial Guard. If a Guard Company comes under heavy fire from say an Ork Waagh! which is holed up within a ruined city--then there is no guarantee that the Navy will respond with bombers or orbital fire.

The Guard, however, will respond with their artillery batteries on the ground.

Of course, the war is not ONLY bombardments, but bombardments are effective in offensive war, when a planet is attacked by Imperials. For defensive war, when all orbital defence structures have been destroyed and Orks walk through once-peaceful towns and villages, shouting and chopping, ground troops will make more sense.

Farseer Petriel wrote:
Of course, the war is not ONLY bombardments, but bombardments are effective in offensive war, when a planet is attacked by Imperials.

Bombardments cannot hold ground. They can only deny it to the enemy.
In any kind of "offensive" war the Imperium has been engaged in, troops are always landed if they intend on taking the planet for habitation.

Otherwise, they could just Exterminatus the whole place and call it a win.

For defensive war, when all orbital defence structures have been destroyed and Orks walk through once-peaceful towns and villages, shouting and chopping, ground troops will make more sense.

Erm, actually--other way around.

For a defensive war, bombardments make far more sense--especially against forces like the Orks or Tyranids, who can be lured into areas and blasted from orbit with minimum casualties to the defending forces.

Well, in a perfect world that is. In most cases there's Ork ships pounding away, Roks raining down, Tyranid Hive Fleets pouring down swathes of spores, etc...

Farseer Petriel wrote:I think Imperial Guard firebases should have bunkers in Dawn of War I style and/or Bastions and some sensor arrays. I don't think many Earthshakers are necessary for it and mortars are old-fashioned but heavy bolter and Hydra turrets. And the base doesn't require any civilian buildings, ruined or intact.

are you refering to Imperial City products?

Imperial City scenery refers to 'products that can be a material for Firebase buildings' not the city ruins itself. since it has something that might looks like 2nd ed. 'firebase' product.
except that the city thing is too elaborated soz =^.^=

Can 3 Earthshakers/Basilisks (i want more 'codex' formations sir.) enough to form 'a battery'?
and what is the maximum potentials of Earthshaker howitzer? can it becomes off-map weapon and needed to be directed by DM Advisor? (an officier with 18th century cuirass and backpack voxcaster)

Earthshakers are the howitzers the Basilisk is built around.
Their range is huge. They're already capable of indirect fire, but the fact that we're looking at a table means that things have to be downsized or upsized to make it representative/balanced.

And yeah. 3 Earthshaker platforms is enough to form a battery. It's the bare minimum, and it isn't counting the automated defenses/platoons of Guardsmen the firebase/battery would have attached to it for defense against sabotage or surgical strikes.

Lone Cat wrote:

Farseer Petriel wrote:I think Imperial Guard firebases should have bunkers in Dawn of War I style and/or Bastions and some sensor arrays. I don't think many Earthshakers are necessary for it and mortars are old-fashioned but heavy bolter and Hydra turrets. And the base doesn't require any civilian buildings, ruined or intact.

are you refering to Imperial City products?

Imperial City scenery refers to 'products that can be a material for Firebase buildings' not the city ruins itself. since it has something that might looks like 2nd ed. 'firebase' product.
except that the city thing is too elaborated soz =^.^=

Can 3 Earthshakers/Basilisks (i want more 'codex' formations sir.) enough to form 'a battery'?
and what is the maximum potentials of Earthshaker howitzer? can it becomes off-map weapon and needed to be directed by DM Advisor? (an officier with 18th century cuirass and backpack voxcaster)

Imperial City products are mostly Gothic buildings with large windows and they won't make a good firebase.
Three Eartshakers are enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

Farseer Petriel wrote:
Of course, the war is not ONLY bombardments, but bombardments are effective in offensive war, when a planet is attacked by Imperials.

Bombardments cannot hold ground. They can only deny it to the enemy.
In any kind of "offensive" war the Imperium has been engaged in, troops are always landed if they intend on taking the planet for habitation.

Otherwise, they could just Exterminatus the whole place and call it a win.

For defensive war, when all orbital defence structures have been destroyed and Orks walk through once-peaceful towns and villages, shouting and chopping, ground troops will make more sense.

Erm, actually--other way around.

For a defensive war, bombardments make far more sense--especially against forces like the Orks or Tyranids, who can be lured into areas and blasted from orbit with minimum casualties to the defending forces.

Well, in a perfect world that is. In most cases there's Ork ships pounding away, Roks raining down, Tyranid Hive Fleets pouring down swathes of spores, etc...

Bombardments can decrease the number of enemies so they are indeed effective against hordey armies such as Orks and Tyranids.
I say that sometimes troop deployment is a waste of human power. And Imperials don't need to bomb planets until the last microbe on it is killed (if they don't want to do an Exterminatus, of course).

Kal has been spot on in this thread.

Now, for the whole debate on naval gunfire support vs ground-based artillery support....who knows what the term "danger close" means?

According to the Free Dictionary (which cites the 2005 Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms), "danger close" is, "In close air support, artillery, mortar, and naval gunfire support fires, it is the term included in the method of engagement segment of a call for fire which indicates that friendly forces are within close proximity of the target. The close proximity distance is determined by the weapon and munition fired."

Now, what do you think danger close will be for a 120mm mortar (I figure that's what the Griffon is)? How about an Earthshaker? How about an orbital lance strike? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't an orbital bombardment have to be centered on a piece of terrain? Horribly inaccurate, has a hell of a thermal bloom, takes a long time to get a shooting solution, and is just problematic. Certainly, useful in some circumstances, especially when a unit doesn't have organic heavy artillery (*cough* SPACE MARINES *cough cough*), but...how much iron can a battery of Earthshakers put on target in the time that an orbital strike takes to get down? I mean, hell, look at the problem of communications. You have to have a beefy bloody vox to punch a signal up to orbit, or you have to send a message to someone to then send a message to the ship, which is probably doing other stuff. A battery of artillery? They are, quite literally, there to provide fire support.

Now, another thing is how permanent is this firebase? If an Earthshaker company set up shop yesterday, dug in, made some sandbag bunkers and a few ammo dumps....is that a firebase, or is it an "artillery emplacement"? Or is it both?

3 Earthshakers or multiples thereof. so it would expand in increments of 3(3, 6, 9...)

for tabletop purposes, 3 will work perfectly.



as far as representing it with models, you can do 3 Basilisks that have been drivin into gunpits for a more recent and less permanant fortification, 3 Earthshakers in gunpits with or without rockrete bunkers would be a permanant base(such as one defending the perimeter of a Hive city)

permission to reactivate the thread please.

and do you refer 'rockrete bunker' to a gunpit made of AEGIS DEFENCE wall? (and without roof? that works for artillery but not for infantry. mew!)

The "Aegis" defense wall (capitals are not needed, outside of for the A) is not intended to be a permanent fortification.

It's something deployed in the field, for temporary fortifications.

Firebases are ain't originally designed to be permanent fortifications unless the situations called for.
ok do you think that Aegis defense wall really works for making a firebase? once the campaign is over it will be packed into container crates.

=^.^=

According to some fluff i read, one of the guants ghosts, the navy's doctrine is to only orbital bombard before troops are on the ground, otherwise its too inaccurate. So the guard would have need to had dedicated artillery in the rear providing support. And like it had been stated the firebases are more effective, if less mobile. I like all three of the fire bases pics you posted, with #1 looking like the fronts bogged down and they have had time to set up rockcrete defenses. #2 looks very vietnamy to me. #3 looks pretty decent. Just my $0.02

IMO i believe the fire bases the ig use would use the Aegis lines. So maybe a firebase would look like a mix of pics 1 and 3. With some aegis lines.

As for air power its easier to shoot down a plane then to stop an artillery round.

personally the 1st 'Firebase' comes from Ironhands website and it is cited as such, personally it looks too much Atlantic walls to me, I'm prefer them to be a bit less permanent, i.e. being either fieldworks (+sandbags) or deployed using a tiny-packed prefabricated structures. it has to be deployable anywhere.
the 2nd and 3rd are what i was unsure whether is it a proper firebase?

now some more compositions. Bunkers.
1. is it neccessary that a bunker should hold ten men?
2. and is it neccessary that it has embrasseurs (?) facing every directions just like ones in Red Alert pillboxes?

I googled firebase and this was one of the pictures. A games workshop firebase.

As for bunkers, i think maybe 6-10 people per bunker. And it should have fire ports to cover at least a 180 degree field of fire. I don't think 360 is necessary however, maybe at most 270 degree fields of fire. Most bunkers I've seen have 90 to 180.

Any as for the first pic i like it becasue it fits the guards tactics of defense. But to each his own.

What we use now is Hesco Bastion.
It is a gabion basket designed to be put together like giant sandbags.

http://www.armedforces-int.com/gallery/hesco-bastion-concertainer-afghanistan/fob-keenan_01.html

Very effective.
Can be stripped out very quickly too.

Speaking of orbital bombardment, it's really only good against a select few types of targets. The first being cities which are a) large, b) easy to target and c) almost entirely incapable of moving (Hive Ambulon doesn't count). The second type of target it's really good against are forests, trees, small hills, shallow lakes and other terrain features... mostly because they don't move and don't generally feature armor. The third type of target an orbital bombardment is good against is a large concentration of bivouacked soldiers that is unaware of the risk of orbital bombardment. These, like other targets, also tend not to move.

Outside of these situations? Orbital strikes simply cannot react fast enough, with enough precision, to be useful. One might call for fire support from a FSB when fighting a platoon or company of enemy troops... but one is not going to call for orbital fire support when the enemy is only 200 meters away, as you are likely to be incinerated as well.... or perhaps instead of.

rob-or-ross wrote:What we use now is Hesco Bastion.
It is a gabion basket designed to be put together like giant sandbags.

http://www.armedforces-int.com/gallery/hesco-bastion-concertainer-afghanistan/fob-keenan_01.html

Very effective.
Can be stripped out very quickly too.

Hesco Concertainers product are quick installations, quick dismantling, but incredibly strong and thick (and few layers of hesco bastion stacked over each other can make a thick medieval curtain wall.

the only minus is, you need powered equipments (Trucks or Trojan engineering vehicle ,bulldozer and excavator) to set things up otherwise the construction speed can't be fully exploited.

I believe that the IoM has one but not popular amongs TT players.. yet. maybe because there is only one manufacturer that makes this terrain pieces... for now.

the GW 'Imperial Firebase' product (which it's now OOP) looks extremely cool! i believe it was built using purely steel constructions.

Why isn't 360 degrees field of fire neccessary for any bunker? doesn't the risk of exposure to flanking attacks being taken into an account? or are those bunkers deployed as a part of trenches or any kind of bullet blocking barriers?

To continually compare the Guard to modern forces is silly.

Guard fortifications commonly will start off as 'temporary', but be built up and up and up until they eventually become the basis of a permanent fortification.

Modern forces and their fortifications are to be temporary, for the most part.

You can fill Hesco with shovels but - trust me - you don't want to be in that situation.