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.

Imperial forces technology - Vortex missiles, void shielding, troops with camoline, long las snipers which could 1-hit you from half a continent away. Not to mention the sheer magnitude of power that the imperial army has. I don't even think that the US army could even down a Leviathan command vehicle, and titans....fat chance short of a nuke and even then....

100 versus 100. Basic armament on both sides would result in modern army winning, but if it was properly organised, IG would very definately win. Heck, even a baneblade would be hard to knock out.

jonolikespie wrote:You know if we are comparing US troops to IG then it should probably be cadians, both being some of (debatably the) best. And considering that in Cadian Blood a guy got a shoulder wound that threw off him aim, causing him to miss twice in a row and got reported to the captain for it I'd give it to the IG over the US (idk much about US marine training but I'd assume they would accept that a shoulder wound would throw off your aim). Plus there is the whole 8 year olds stripping and re assembling lasguns and running what other regiments consider basic training.

Yes, and that's what I did.

With regard to the eight years training in stripping a lasgun.

I've been eating soup all my life. I probably had 20 years of soup eating experience before a lot of you younger users were even born, and I've gone on eating soup ever since. I've eaten gallons of different soups in a bunch of different countries, and I've used all the major and variant methods of eating soup.

My daughter, only aged 11, is already just as good at eating soup as I am.

Ulver wrote:
True about the hydras, although unmanned battlefields are plausible

1) Why not? Can you explain where they are needed in battle?

Holding a position, actually directing the UAVs to their targets? It's kind of hard to spot a company sized infantry unit from the air, unless they're making themselves known. UAVs are a great force multiplier and wonderful support, but they ARE support. Not a replacement.

2) Why do they have to be in range? With satcomms there is no limit to signal range. Also, assuming they are in range, the artillery need to know where to target - if the control centre is in a hidden, undisclosed location the artillery can only take pot-shots and hope. It may be in an underground nuclear bunker, so even a direct hit will be ineffective.

THis is assuming the Imperial Navy hasn't destroyed every satellite they find. And even if it's in an undisclosed location, and in an underground bunker, you don't need to kill the operators to silence the UAVs. You just need to destroy the communications/signalling equipment.

3) Well then you can get the F22s out again

Lightning Escort.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I've been eating soup all my life. I probably had 20 years of soup eating experience before a lot of you younger users were even born, and I've gone on eating soup ever since. I've eaten gallons of different soups in a bunch of different countries, and I've used all the major and variant methods of eating soup.

My daughter, only aged 11, is already just as good at eating soup as I am.

However, there's a difference between eating soup and maintaining a weapon. Sure, 20 years of experience eating soup means little to nothing about the efficiency of your soup consumption compared to someone with 5 years. However, 20 years experience maintaining a weapon makes much more of a difference. If I learned today how to field strip and clean an assault rifle, I'd lose out to someone who has lots of experience field stripping and cleaning the same gun. Experience is much more important.

Ulver wrote:On the subject of Flak Armour being so good: sure, if a round actually hits the armour it may be stopped. However Flak Armour only covers the torso (and not completely, at that), a helmet for the head, and shoulder, knee and elbow pads. Remember that a kill is not necessary (nor always preferred) to take a soldier out of the fight.

Note that while Flak armor doesnt cover much on the guardsman, their guns make modern military armor moot, so in any case, assuming they were shooting at eachother with little to no cover, Imp Guard at best is wearing light tank armor, at worst on par with modern militaries.

It must also be pointed out (again) that Flak Armor in the IoM sense is not the same as Flak armor as we have today. It can deflect laser weapons, whereas our flak armor can barely stop gun rounds.

In addition, alot of people seem to be comparing all sorts of US military troops to the basic guard. Sure a sniper can be used to take out the commander, but IG can bring their own snipers to counter them, as well as Ratling snipers (who are harder to counter-snipe due to their small size and adept use of cover). Special Forces? The Imperial Guard can bring in Stormtroopers, who's Hotshot Lasguns can burn through Power armor (roughly equivallent to that of a light tank, if the indication that they can stand in an open topped rhino without making a Rhino open topped is correct). Stormtroopers can also pack anti-tank weapons in the form of small-scale fusion guns (meltas) and plasma guns. Then there's something the modern military cannot possibly account for, Ogryns. Hulking brutes who's skin laughs in the face of most modern guns, as well as wearing a respectable amount of the aforementioned Flak Armor. In addition, they carry around shotguns with a barrel feed, as well as being strong enough to be comparable to a grenade launcher.

Also, *insert obligitory CREED joke*

ChrisWWII wrote:

Ulver wrote:
True about the hydras, although unmanned battlefields are plausible

1) Why not? Can you explain where they are needed in battle?

Holding a position, actually directing the UAVs to their targets? It's kind of hard to spot a company sized infantry unit from the air, unless they're making themselves known. UAVs are a great force multiplier and wonderful support, but they ARE support. Not a replacement.

A position could be held by UGVs, if they can establish a perimeter and present effective fields of fire to keep the enemy out, job done - same as if human infantry can establish a perimeter and present adequate fields of fire. The grunts are only needed after combat has finished - destroy/drive off the enemy with UGVs, send the foot soliders in to capitalise on the objective; there's still no human target presented to the enemy.

ChrisWWII wrote:

2) Why do they have to be in range? With satcomms there is no limit to signal range. Also, assuming they are in range, the artillery need to know where to target - if the control centre is in a hidden, undisclosed location the artillery can only take pot-shots and hope. It may be in an underground nuclear bunker, so even a direct hit will be ineffective.

THis is assuming the Imperial Navy hasn't destroyed every satellite they find. And even if it's in an undisclosed location, and in an underground bunker, you don't need to kill the operators to silence the UAVs. You just need to destroy the communications/signalling equipment.

Satellite was only one example, and I was only thinking of it for other-side-of-the-world control, and even then it's not the only option, SW radio waves get reflected from the ionosphere. All sorts of communications protocols are available. Let's face it, ARPANET was nearly 50 years ago, I'm sure the US have moved on from then with fully redundant communications.

Signalling equipment could very well be smaller than a person, disguised as a tree, hidden up a tree, AWACS used as nodes, all sorts of things. If they want a commnet, they can set one up.

ChrisWWII wrote:

3) Well then you can get the F22s out again

Lightning Escort.

I will see your Lightning Escort and raise you one Metal Storm system (instead of the F22s; maybe several Metal Storm systems )








FWIW I think you're right that we will never see 100% UV battlegrounds (actually, maybe one day, but not for a long time); as I said it is theoretical. A bit like pitching fictional IG against real world military.

Ulver wrote:
I will see your Lightning Escort and raise you one Metal Storm system (instead of the F22s; maybe several Metal Storm systems )

I re-raise: Those won't be able to shoot down bombers or fighters that operates in high orbit. Neither will the F22s.

Modern solders all the way because they don't rely on dice rolls.

Ulver wrote:
A position could be held by UGVs, if they can establish a perimeter and present effective fields of fire to keep the enemy out, job done - same as if human infantry can establish a perimeter and present adequate fields of fire. The grunts are only needed after combat has finished - destroy/drive off the enemy with UGVs, send the foot soliders in to capitalise on the objective; there's still no human target presented to the enemy.

Any UGV could quite easily be outsmarted by a human soldier, one of the reasons you don't send armor out on its own is because you need the eyes nad ears of the infantry to see what's around your tank, and it's the same with a UGV, just on a smaller scale. If it's controlled by a human, that human can only be looking so many ways at once, it's not that hard to sneak up on it. If it's completely autonomous? Well even easier to confused and eliminate. UGVs and UAVs are revolutionary in that they change a key aspect of how wars are fought, but they do not obsolete infantry in any sense of the word.

Satellite was only one example, and I was only thinking of it for other-side-of-the-world control, and even then it's not the only option, SW radio waves get reflected from the ionosphere. All sorts of communications protocols are available. Let's face it, ARPANET was nearly 50 years ago, I'm sure the US have moved on from then with fully redundant communications.

Signalling equipment could very well be smaller than a person, disguised as a tree, hidden up a tree, AWACS used as nodes, all sorts of things. If they want a commnet, they can set one up.

And if the Imperium wanted to take it down it could take it down. The Imperium isn't so stupid it can't figure out where signals are coming from. AWACS aircraft can be shot down, forests can be burned to the ground, etc. etc. For an average military force? Not as bad a problem. You can communicate through old fashioned signalling, runners, whatever, but for a UGV or UAV? The loss of 100% signal control would be a major major problem.

I will see your Lightning Escort and raise you one Metal Storm system (instead of the F22s; maybe several Metal Storm systems )

Unless you've magically managed to install metal storm batteries with the range to hit orbital targets all over the world, Metal Storm isn't really relevant. It's awesome, and it looks hella cool, but we're talking a real world military versus the Imperial Guard. The real world military doesn't have metal storm.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Ulver wrote:
A position could be held by UGVs, if they can establish a perimeter and present effective fields of fire to keep the enemy out, job done - same as if human infantry can establish a perimeter and present adequate fields of fire. The grunts are only needed after combat has finished - destroy/drive off the enemy with UGVs, send the foot soliders in to capitalise on the objective; there's still no human target presented to the enemy.

Any UGV could quite easily be outsmarted by a human soldier, one of the reasons you don't send armor out on its own is because you need the eyes nad ears of the infantry to see what's around your tank, and it's the same with a UGV, just on a smaller scale. If it's controlled by a human, that human can only be looking so many ways at once, it's not that hard to sneak up on it. If it's completely autonomous? Well even easier to confused and eliminate. UGVs and UAVs are revolutionary in that they change a key aspect of how wars are fought, but they do not obsolete infantry in any sense of the word.

Satellite was only one example, and I was only thinking of it for other-side-of-the-world control, and even then it's not the only option, SW radio waves get reflected from the ionosphere. All sorts of communications protocols are available. Let's face it, ARPANET was nearly 50 years ago, I'm sure the US have moved on from then with fully redundant communications.

Signalling equipment could very well be smaller than a person, disguised as a tree, hidden up a tree, AWACS used as nodes, all sorts of things. If they want a commnet, they can set one up.

And if the Imperium wanted to take it down it could take it down. The Imperium isn't so stupid it can't figure out where signals are coming from. AWACS aircraft can be shot down, forests can be burned to the ground, etc. etc. For an average military force? Not as bad a problem. You can communicate through old fashioned signalling, runners, whatever, but for a UGV or UAV? The loss of 100% signal control would be a major major problem.

I will see your Lightning Escort and raise you one Metal Storm system (instead of the F22s; maybe several Metal Storm systems )

Unless you've magically managed to install metal storm batteries with the range to hit orbital targets all over the world, Metal Storm isn't really relevant. It's awesome, and it looks hella cool, but we're talking a real world military versus the Imperial Guard. The real world military doesn't have metal storm.

All very good points

I still think bringing down an entire comms network would be nigh on impossible. The whole point of a packet switched network like ARPANET/Internet is that as soon as one node goes down, the connection is automatically routed through the next best route. If we're talking about an invasion situation the fighting would most likely be around population centres, and then you've got GPRS/3G transmitters every 400 metres or so.

I wouldn't say that the military doesn't have Metal Storm; they just don't have it in large amounts. Small orders have been delivered (I assume for testing purposes), but you're right, if we're taking a snapshot the military today, no it isn't relevant.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Ulver wrote:
I will see your Lightning Escort and raise you one Metal Storm system (instead of the F22s; maybe several Metal Storm systems )

I re-raise: Those won't be able to shoot down bombers or fighters that operates in high orbit. Neither will the F22s.

It doesn't need to shoot down the bombers - it only needs to shoot down the bombs. One of the stated purposes of multi-barrel Metal Storm weapons is to shoot down missiles and other projectiles.

Ulver wrote:
It doesn't need to shoot down the bombers - it only needs to shoot down the bombs. One of the stated purposes of multi-barrel Metal Storm weapons is to shoot down missiles and other projectiles.

Still doesn't stop las/lance/tratitional ordnance weapons from fzorgling/kabooming the metal storms themselves.

Ulver wrote:
I still think bringing down an entire comms network would be nigh on impossible. The whole point of a packet switched network like ARPANET/Internet is that as soon as one node goes down, the connection is automatically routed through the next best route. If we're talking about an invasion situation the fighting would most likely be around population centres, and then you've got GPRS/3G transmitters every 400 metres or so.

EMP. Poof goes all the civilian infrastructure.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

I still think the IG would win, it is probably the army that has more battle experience that would prevail when it comes to similiar strengthed weapons in a controlled environment.

With IG you don't know. We could be talking about the hardbitten veterans of scores of battlefields, men who have encountered every evil feth in the 40k galaxy and walked over them...or we could be talking about the greenies from 15 hours.

Well, modern militaries may just be any from any country then, it could be from North Korea, China, Japan or less advanced, there should be a definiton of modern and experience and also the armies in consideration ( which should be similiar to each other), as i stated in earlier posts. Also, 15 hours against anything in the 40k universe would seem experienced enough.

Ulver wrote:
I still think bringing down an entire comms network would be nigh on impossible. The whole point of a packet switched network like ARPANET/Internet is that as soon as one node goes down, the connection is automatically routed through the next best route. If we're talking about an invasion situation the fighting would most likely be around population centres, and then you've got GPRS/3G transmitters every 400 metres or so.

I wouldn't say that the military doesn't have Metal Storm; they just don't have it in large amounts. Small orders have been delivered (I assume for testing purposes), but you're right, if we're taking a snapshot the military today, no it isn't relevant

As was said, EMP blasts, signal jamming, all kinds of things that could be easy enough for the Imperium to unleash. More importantly, hwo can we be sure the main targets will be population centers? In the 40k universe, the Guard targets population centers not because they're population centers, but because they have spaceports there that they can use to bring down more crap. I have a feeling the primary targets of an Imperial invasion would only become population center once they have secured a stronghold on planet Earth.

Besides, even if the communications network is secure, one good lance shot from orbit should destroy the source of the signals, even if the source is a nuclear bunker.

It doesn't need to shoot down the bombers - it only needs to shoot down the bombs. One of the stated purposes of multi-barrel Metal Storm weapons is to shoot down missiles and other projectiles.

One of the biggest problems with current CIWS is not that the weapons are not fast enough, accurate enough, or rapid firing enough to take down enemy missiles....it's that even after they shred the missile, the warhead, or other nasty bits just continues straight on thanks to momentum and hits the target anyway. The same will happen with bomsb. You'll shread the bomb, yes, but there will still be a 500 lbs warhead falling towards the ground.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Ulver wrote:
I will see your Lightning Escort and raise you one Metal Storm system (instead of the F22s; maybe several Metal Storm systems )

I re-raise: Those won't be able to shoot down bombers or fighters that operates in high orbit. Neither will the F22s.

But since when do imperial fighters and bombers operate from high orbit?

Imperial bombers seem to usually operate from altitudes comparable to modern jet bombers, which would usually be in range of a metal storm system.

And it has been mentionned that imperials could use las, plasma or lance weaponry to flatten our troops. But these weapons are only operated from ships in high orbit, and are highly unaccurate. They're meant to burn entire continents, not to launch surgical strikes.

I wouldn't call metal storm useless but there are some errors in that video.

1. The basic concept is quite old. Some experiments into rapid fire guns involved stacking the ammunition in the barrel and igniting it with a series of hammers.

2. Electronic ignition doesn't eliminate the possibility of misfires. Once a misfire occurs, the ammo stacked in the barrel becomes a problem, because if the next round in line gets ignited, it might touch off the round in front of it.

Laodamia wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Ulver wrote:
I will see your Lightning Escort and raise you one Metal Storm system (instead of the F22s; maybe several Metal Storm systems )

I re-raise: Those won't be able to shoot down bombers or fighters that operates in high orbit. Neither will the F22s.

But since when do imperial fighters and bombers operate from high orbit?

Imperial bombers seem to usually operate from altitudes comparable to modern jet bombers, which would usually be in range of a metal storm system.

And it has been mentionned that imperials could use las, plasma or lance weaponry to flatten our troops. But these weapons are only operated from ships in high orbit, and are highly unaccurate. They're meant to burn entire continents, not to launch surgical strikes.

Fine then. Anti-ship torpedoes launched from orbit. Have fun shooting them down. You don't have to be accurate if you have a big enough boom!

Laodamia wrote:
But since when do imperial fighters and bombers operate from high orbit?

Imperial bombers seem to usually operate from altitudes comparable to modern jet bombers, which would usually be in range of a metal storm system.

And it has been mentionned that imperials could use las, plasma or lance weaponry to flatten our troops. But these weapons are only operated from ships in high orbit, and are highly unaccurate. They're meant to burn entire continents, not to launch surgical strikes.

They come down from high orbit. And I doubt a high altitude jet bomber like a B-52 or Tu-160 would linger around in range of surface guns. There is a reason we switched away from ack ack and to SAMs people! The best use of metal storm would be against low but fast aircraft, like a Thunderbolt providing close air support, not trying to intercept high altitude bombers.

And, given that in game Marines can call in orbital strikes, something tells me that orbital fire is a bit more accurate than you're giving credit for. Remember, ship to ship weapons have to be accurate enough to hit another ship size vessell at combat ranges of hundreds of thousands of miles. At closer range, there is no doubt that they'd be able to land shots in a decently containted area. It would be as accurate as say field artillery, but it would be able to be used tacticcally.

I like your points, but its 100 men (or 200), you dont need orbital strikes to decimate a hundred men.

People still keep bringing up the air support thing though. Imp Guard's Orbital Support easily counters that.

People keep bringing up all kinds of things which are not relevant to the discussion.

Me: *grabs radio* Hey, see that big gagglefuck of IG?
FO: Yeah.
Me: Fire for effect.
*120 MIKE MIKESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!*
Me: thanks.

IG has better artillery.

How so?

yes just as killcrazy said the original senario is 100 modern earth troops vs. 100 IG troops, not space craft and bombers, and tanks and such, perhaps intrinsic artillery support such as what the master of ordance can call, and what our FO's can have access to bt not battlebarges/Retribution battleships raining melta torps onto the battle field, because in that case both groups of troops get turned into statistics.

and P.S baring the vortex/death strike missle I have always been a bit underwhelmed by the IG's artillery even as described by the various forge world books, its basically a slightly scaled up WW2 artillery systems, our current GPS guided munitions, and MLRS systems make most the presented ingame IG stuff pretty amatureish to say the least, just for a example a MLRS strike can pretty much eliminate all hostiles in 1k grid....I have seen it happen in RL, scary stuff.

And a Manticore is basically a MLRS system. The Imperial Guard's artillery is equal to modern systems at the very least, and have it in much greater quantities. I personally think it's valid to be discussing these things, given that a company sized force will have SOME kind of communications equipment to call for air, artillery or even orbital support.

If we're assuming that they've lost all communications somehow, I think the answeris simple. They keep each other pinned through heavy weapons fire until one side finally gets it support in action. Infantry aren't meant to attack without any support. They're meant to attack with artillery bombardments, and armor support. That or be meched up....and we still haven't even decided that, have we? Is this a swarm company, or is this a comany mounted up in Chimeras with intrinsic Leman Russ support? Same thing for the Earth force....

What he said.

If you want to assume that both sides have full access to the maximum possible support their respective high commands can provide, then obviously the IG will win very quickly, because the IoM have practically limitless troops, ships and so on compared to the whole of modern Earth.

The result is so pre-determined that it makes the whole exercise meaningless and dull.

I'm not assuming that, I'm just wondering...we need to determine who is facing who. We've managed to say its the US Army fighint a Cadian Regiment, but we still need more information. 100 Guardsmen...are they motor rifle? foot? What? I'm tempted to just say we have two infantry companies, and their communications have been cut off. So the IG can't call in artillery or orbital support, and the earth forces can't call in air strikes. Each side is a pure infantry company, so no Leman Russes or Chimeras for the Imperials, and no Bradleys or Abrams for the Earth forces. Seem fair to everyone?

I picked the most basic and lightly armed US Army infantry unit, which is a light infantry company with none of its supports. This happens to be on paper 96 men, so I added four more with rifles.

It should be possible to find a fairly standard IG infantry unit of similar size. They are based on modern armies after all.

Kilkrazy wrote:I picked the most basic and lightly armed US Army infantry unit, which is a light infantry company with none of its supports. This happens to be on paper 96 men, so I added four more with rifles.

It should be possible to find a fairly standard IG infantry unit of similar size. They are based on modern armies after all.

Which is exactly what makes this discussion so pointless.

Alright, so that's 3 rifle platoons, and one heavy weapons platoon for the US Army. According to wikipedia, each rifle platton consists of a Platoon HQ (essentially a PCS), 3 Rifle Squads, and a Heavy Weapons Squad. I personally believe something like this IG Infantry Company would be equal to that. As a more Russian style army, the IG is concentrating all its heavy weapons in squads under central command, instead of leaving them more dispersed amongst the men.

We'll assume that they're bringing weapons suited to fighting other infantry, so machine guns, mortars, and some light AT (AT4s or the similar) for the US Army, and heavy bolters, autocannons and missile launchers for the IG. I personally think that leaves us about equal.

If these 2 forces were to face each other in the field, I'd predict stalemate with victory eventually going to the IG. With heavy weapons, and decent leadership on both sides, each side would be reduced to firign at the other from foxholes or other such fixed position, essentially a war of attrition, and this favors the IG. With the faith and determination of zealots on their side (not to mention Commissars) their morale would take longer to break.