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.

Martel732 wrote:
They make a lot more sense than the fluff written by gibbering illiterate baboons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your using game stats to determine that. The Background shows that the Las Guns are much more powerful than a modern assault rifle. A standard bullet isn't blowing off a limb clean or blasting chunks of concrete off the wall in one shot.

The background shows nothing, because it doesn't exist in the actual model that is the game. If there's no rule for it, it doesn't exist.

lol your just trolling at this point, if you hate the fluff so much, go elsewhere, were discussing a hypothetical situation vs a hypothetical force, and your claiming only the rules cant be used because nothing else "exists", we know that space marines are not real, the only thing that can be considered is the fluff, the rules do not reflect the fluff very well with marines, or many armies for that matter, and the rules are made for balance, so marines are toned down, but you know this, so carry on trolling bro.

oh and I'm going to use your reasoning, there are no rules in the fluff, so the game doesn't exist.

Terminators win every time hell a normal marine squad would win. Fluff wise terminator armour is almost indestructible by any of our weapons even nukes although the concussion force would knock them down they would get back up. What is also been missed is these marines battle experience is probably around 100 times that of the most battle hardened veteran on the planet. They can think and act in a blink of an eye.

To be honest fluff wise they wouldn't need to teleport into middle of the base they could walk up to the front door and all we could do was put on a light show.

But game wise hell just look at them the wrong way and they would die horribly but it is fun killing them with gretchin just brings a smile to your face.

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They make a lot more sense than the fluff written by gibbering illiterate baboons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your using game stats to determine that. The Background shows that the Las Guns are much more powerful than a modern assault rifle. A standard bullet isn't blowing off a limb clean or blasting chunks of concrete off the wall in one shot.

The background shows nothing, because it doesn't exist in the actual model that is the game. If there's no rule for it, it doesn't exist.

lol your just trolling at this point, if you hate the fluff so much, go elsewhere, were discussing a hypothetical situation vs a hypothetical force, and your claiming only the rules cant be used because nothing else "exists", we know that space marines are not real, the only thing that can be considered is the fluff, the rules do not reflect the fluff very well with marines, or many armies for that matter, and the rules are made for balance, so marines are toned down, but you know this, so carry on trolling bro.

oh and I'm going to use your reasoning, there are no rules in the fluff, so the game doesn't exist.

Shotguns can clearly kill terminators though. My friend does it all the time with scouts. They can't be that great.

And the concrete destroying lasguns don't appear to exist from my games against Imperial Guard. Guardsmen can barely kill another guardsmen with them.

" and the rules are made for balance"

Now you are just being silly.

Termies, the combo of them being well armoured and armed with futuristic storm bolters against modern tech would be a slaughter

Considering how gakky the ''super'' material the IOM uses when hard numbers are added to it, the termies are going to die

 Bobthehero wrote:
Considering how gakky the ''super'' material the IOM uses when hard numbers are added to it, the termies are going to die

And that the super material often contradicts itself. Ceramite is described as being very strong but also conducting basically no heat. That is impossible. Strength comes from the atomic bonds and the types of atomic bonds which give you high strength also give you high thermal conductivity by allowing the vibrations of the atoms to spread through those bonds.

Regardless of the variable fluff strength of terminator armor. . . the terminators are going to run out of ammo prior to eliminating the majority of the base. Their rate of fire combined with the size of the shell and their limited availability of additional ammo magazines means they'll barely have enough rounds to take down a couple platoons. And then they're down to using power-fists. And given that they're usually shown as being slow movers in terminator armor (it being originally designed for deep space industrial work), they can probably just be outmaneuvered until the heavy weapons are brought against them. At which point they will be brought down.

I think a tactical squad would have a better chance actually. They're fast, mobile, and the terminators weapons are largely overkill against generally unarmored modern infantry.

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They make a lot more sense than the fluff written by gibbering illiterate baboons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your using game stats to determine that. The Background shows that the Las Guns are much more powerful than a modern assault rifle. A standard bullet isn't blowing off a limb clean or blasting chunks of concrete off the wall in one shot.

The background shows nothing, because it doesn't exist in the actual model that is the game. If there's no rule for it, it doesn't exist.

lol your just trolling at this point, if you hate the fluff so much, go elsewhere, were discussing a hypothetical situation vs a hypothetical force, and your claiming only the rules cant be used because nothing else "exists", we know that space marines are not real, the only thing that can be considered is the fluff, the rules do not reflect the fluff very well with marines, or many armies for that matter, and the rules are made for balance, so marines are toned down, but you know this, so carry on trolling bro.

oh and I'm going to use your reasoning, there are no rules in the fluff, so the game doesn't exist.

Shotguns can clearly kill terminators though. My friend does it all the time with scouts. They can't be that great.

And the concrete destroying lasguns don't appear to exist from my games against Imperial Guard. Guardsmen can barely kill another guardsmen with them.

" and the rules are made for balance"

Now you are just being silly.

Why are you arguing game rules in a thread about a hypothetical scenario that can exist in said game? Nor set up to be one? You're arguing game stats versus lore and you deny even acknowledging that the lore is valid! Unless you believe that 40k is an accurate simulation of real life which... it isn't. An M4 Carbine would be statted out as S3 since it's a kind of Autogun and, according to you, that would make it inferior to itself because it can't hit harder than a man punches!

Your arguments make no sense at all.

Well it depends where they drop.... If they hit Britain, Sweden or Germany then they are pretty much dead. Hell, who cares about APDS shells when we have HESH which will not only pulverise their bones and organs through sheer concussive force but also turn their own armour against them.
More to the point those .75 HE shells are only ever going to be good against infantry, soft skins and aircraft. And they will be impossible to reload so once the Terminators are out they are screwed. Of course they have their power fists/lightning claws/chainfists/thunder hammers but they first have to get close enough to use them and therein lies the problem because Terminator armour slows the wearer down massively. So the basic infantry will just back away wilst shooting and the terminators will never even get close. Outnumbered, out gunned and out manoeuvred they will die like rats in trap.

(Oh and BTW, I saw someone earlier state that the Abrahams is the best tank in the world. I would like to take this opportunity laugh at them and point them i the direction of the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, both of which are vastly superior to the ageing Abrahams)

The Abrams (like the Leo2 and other tanks) has been upgraded consistently throughout its life. The A6 Leo2's have a leg up on it with a longer barreled gun (with A5's retaining the same gun as the Abrams), maybe Challenger 2 also, but there's no quantum leap between these machines, the quality of crews and command are going to make a far greater difference than the minor capability differences. More importantly, there's also several multiples more Abrams in service than their are modernized Leo2's and Challenger 2's combined, there's only about 400 ish Challenger 2's, with maybe a thousand Leo2's in service of A5/A6 or variant thereof, as opposed to ~7000 Abrams A1 and newer variants in service.

This is one of those questions that can really only answered by defining what version of terminator fluff you go by.
Tabletop mechanics where massed grots can wipe a squad? kerbstomp Earth.
Mid level fluff where termies can wade through heavy forces but are vulnerable, relatively slow and limited in support? probably a termie loss albeit taking guys down with them.
Uber fluff where they wade through entire divisions? Well, you know that outcome.

 Ratius wrote:
This is one of those questions that can really only answered by defining what version of terminator fluff you go by.
Tabletop mechanics where massed grots can wipe a squad? kerbstomp Earth.
Mid level fluff where termies can wade through heavy forces but are vulnerable, relatively slow and limited in support? probably a termie loss albeit taking guys down with them.
Uber fluff where they wade through entire divisions? Well, you know that outcome.

Or those somersaulting terminators?

 master of ordinance wrote:


(Oh and BTW, I saw someone earlier state that the Abrahams is the best tank in the world. I would like to take this opportunity laugh at them and point them i the direction of the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, both of which are vastly superior to the ageing Abrahams)

The people that will tell you the Abrams is the best tank in the world, even compared to the Leo 2 and Challenger 2, are the people who have real world experience. Not read it in books or on the internet.

It's not a matter of gun or powertrain or armor or situational awareness. It's a matter of the M1 series has logged more combat time, and thus the improvements from M1 to M1A1 to M1A2SEP to the M1A3 are all a result of combat, not "this might work better" good idea fairies. Comparing the 3 tanks listed, there's also a difference in tank philosophy between the 3 developers. Neither Britain nor Germany rely on their heavy units. Sure, they have some tanks, but they will gleefully drop a much-needed improvement to save money. The US, on the other hand, has repeatedly proven to itself the power of a heavy BCT, and money gets spent on the M1-series as soon as the need for an improvement is noted. The US has enough tanks for improvements to get some economy of scale, but not so many it's prohibitively expensive. As opposed to why the Brits didn't dump the challenger 2's rifled gun, even though HESH has been outclassed by modern armor layering and spall liners.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
This is one of those questions that can really only answered by defining what version of terminator fluff you go by.
Tabletop mechanics where massed grots can wipe a squad? kerbstomp Earth.
Mid level fluff where termies can wade through heavy forces but are vulnerable, relatively slow and limited in support? probably a termie loss albeit taking guys down with them.
Uber fluff where they wade through entire divisions? Well, you know that outcome.

Or those somersaulting terminators?

Nah mate, they tuck their arms and legs in and roll very fast.
Ultramarines are particularly adept at this maneuver, capable at going at sonic speeds.

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Im assuming the petty abram's would maybe dent the armour. And a rpg would just probably bounce off the armour. And it will take a helluva long time to break there weapons with basic military rounds. And if that happened they'll just rely on power fists and there sheer lack of getting there amour pierced. Now if they didn't have a helmet. The marines could just shoot them in the head. And the termie's can just punch the tanks until there's nothing left. optic's could leave them a bit exposed due to the lack of sight. But that's a small chance of doing that due to spread. And before hand the termie's could just teleport into the armoury and detonate that before anyone know's what's going on. And now even with marines with odd amounts of weapons wont be able to dent the armour with small arm's and knifes. And they could also teleport near where the vehicles are stored and simply break destroy them or rig them beforehand. So here's a image of what the marines would be after the Tactical Dreadnought armour squad are done with the entire base.

Dude, don't ask for people's opinions using a poorly stated, incomplete guideline and then arrogantly and brashly brush aside what people say in response. If you wanted to point out that 5 Terminators could destroy everything on the planet without taking casualties, state it as a hypothesis. Asking "what would happen if..." and then coming back with "nope, you're wrong because of some parameters I didn't specify" just seems like trolling.

Basically, you posted a fluff/ background question in the general forum without stating you were looking for a fluff based answer.

jwr wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


(Oh and BTW, I saw someone earlier state that the Abrahams is the best tank in the world. I would like to take this opportunity laugh at them and point them i the direction of the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, both of which are vastly superior to the ageing Abrahams)

The people that will tell you the Abrams is the best tank in the world, even compared to the Leo 2 and Challenger 2, are the people who have real world experience. Not read it in books or on the internet.

It's not a matter of gun or powertrain or armor or situational awareness. It's a matter of the M1 series has logged more combat time, and thus the improvements from M1 to M1A1 to M1A2SEP to the M1A3 are all a result of combat, not "this might work better" good idea fairies. Comparing the 3 tanks listed, there's also a difference in tank philosophy between the 3 developers. Neither Britain nor Germany rely on their heavy units. Sure, they have some tanks, but they will gleefully drop a much-needed improvement to save money. The US, on the other hand, has repeatedly proven to itself the power of a heavy BCT, and money gets spent on the M1-series as soon as the need for an improvement is noted. The US has enough tanks for improvements to get some economy of scale, but not so many it's prohibitively expensive. As opposed to why the Brits didn't dump the challenger 2's rifled gun, even though HESH has been outclassed by modern armor layering and spall liners.

I have real world experience, and I'm telling you that the challenger 2 outclases the Abrams, its just a better tank.

To the matter at hand though, I too would like to know from OP which version of termies were using, fluff or TT.

 Formosa wrote:

I have real world experience, and I'm telling you that the challenger 2 outclases the Abrams, its just a better tank.

To the matter at hand though, I too would like to know from OP which version of termies were using, fluff or TT.

Of course the Challenger is better. You can't make tea in an Abrams!

We seem to be gradually heading back to it, let's just make sure we are talking about terminators and not tea.

 motyak wrote:
We seem to be gradually heading back to it, let's just make sure we are talking about terminators and not tea.

Okay. I will concede the point to my British brethren, the ability to brew up a cup of Earl Grey was not considered when improving the Abrams.

As to our hypothetical termie squad, fluff or TT should make no difference, if we assume consistent reference material for the "modern equivalent" of 40K armor values.

TT or fluff, what kind of weapons bust termie armor? We can then compare those tt or fluff weapons to the effectiveness of actual light, man-portable shape charge weapons, like AT-4, RPG-7, etc. We then consider references for Leman Russ, Landraider, etc armor being "equivalent to 300mm of rolled steel". A foot of steel sounds impressive until you consider an AT-4 can penetrate that. Modern, single shot disposable rockets which aren't even considered antitank weapons will, not might, score penetrating hits on AV14.

Dedicated antitank weapons (like javelins, or worse yet, TOWs or HOTs or Kornets or whatever) would be massive overkill to 40k tanks, much less a termie.

The problem is that when the sources come up with "modern equivalents", they are made to the rule of cool, just like the heroic scale muzzles on Leman Russes. So when we get into the "what if XYZ" discussions using modern weapons, the invariable result is we all apply the rule of cool until someone looks up how much rolled steel an antitank missile or kinetic penetrator can punch through.

jwr wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


(Oh and BTW, I saw someone earlier state that the Abrahams is the best tank in the world. I would like to take this opportunity laugh at them and point them i the direction of the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, both of which are vastly superior to the ageing Abrahams)

The people that will tell you the Abrams is the best tank in the world, even compared to the Leo 2 and Challenger 2, are the people who have real world experience. Not read it in books or on the internet.

It's not a matter of gun or powertrain or armor or situational awareness. It's a matter of the M1 series has logged more combat time, and thus the improvements from M1 to M1A1 to M1A2SEP to the M1A3 are all a result of combat, not "this might work better" good idea fairies. Comparing the 3 tanks listed, there's also a difference in tank philosophy between the 3 developers. Neither Britain nor Germany rely on their heavy units. Sure, they have some tanks, but they will gleefully drop a much-needed improvement to save money. The US, on the other hand, has repeatedly proven to itself the power of a heavy BCT, and money gets spent on the M1-series as soon as the need for an improvement is noted. The US has enough tanks for improvements to get some economy of scale, but not so many it's prohibitively expensive. As opposed to why the Brits didn't dump the challenger 2's rifled gun, even though HESH has been outclassed by modern armor layering and spall liners.

I will answer this when I stop laughing

Okay:
Your Abrams was outclassed by the Challenger/Leopard 1. The M1 was upgraded to be roughly on par with them, baring operational range and thermal signature (sweet feth, those things need to cool down!) but then the MK 2 versions of the Challenger and Leopard came out.
And utterly outclassed the Abrams. Better armour, better fire control systems, better range, better electronic's and better thermal signature. Oh, and less in the way of exhaust plumes.
When it comes to improvements the simple answer is: We dont need them. both Germany and Britain have a reliable and up to date MBT that, as of current, need no upgrades to be effective. The M1, on the other hand, is dated and only remains in service because it is cheap to produce and the upgrades make it just good enough to be competitive.

I'm making a game system myself, which I will probably post somewhere on dakka when it is finished. In it, there won't be an upper limit to the statline of a unit, so we can pit termies against US military (or even medieval knights) and see who the true victor would be!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

I have real world experience, and I'm telling you that the challenger 2 outclases the Abrams, its just a better tank.

To the matter at hand though, I too would like to know from OP which version of termies were using, fluff or TT.

Of course the Challenger is better. You can't make tea in an Abrams!

shhh that's a secret.

OpSec mate, eyes everywhere!!!

 master of ordinance wrote:


I will answer this when I stop laughing

Okay:
Your Abrams was outclassed by the Challenger/Leopard 1. The M1 was upgraded to be roughly on par with them, baring operational range and thermal signature (sweet feth, those things need to cool down!) but then the MK 2 versions of the Challenger and Leopard came out.
And utterly outclassed the Abrams. Better armour, better fire control systems, better range, better electronic's and better thermal signature. Oh, and less in the way of exhaust plumes.
When it comes to improvements the simple answer is: We dont need them. both Germany and Britain have a reliable and up to date MBT that, as of current, need no upgrades to be effective. The M1, on the other hand, is dated and only remains in service because it is cheap to produce and the upgrades make it just good enough to be competitive.

Okay. Let's at least be honest with each other here. I think you are thinking about the M1A1, pre-HE. First, an M1A2 costs about a third more than either the Leo2A5 or the Challenger 2 (even adjusting for Euros). Lord knows what the M1A3 will run. Probably as much as a Leo2 and Challenger 2 combined, and I'll certainly grant it won't be twice as good. Give US defense contractors credit for making their stuff cost as much as they possibly can.

Second, the real reason neither Britain nor Germany see a need to improve their MBTs is that both militaries have reduced what was already a miniscule presence of armor in their formations. Both militaries are down to half a dozen battalions each. There's no need to improve something that functionally only exists for demonstration purposes. Heck, the Germans even call them "demonstration battalions". Then, you bring up things like "better armor" when the US dropped chobham in favor of DU.

Now, you can argue the point about reliability, range and exhaust of V12 diesels versus turbines as counterbalances to performance.

Anyways, at least stop saying it's cheap to produce. There will be a strike and General Dynamics will add another half million to the price tag.

From military base versus termie. Now which tank is better that are from 3 countries..... Why exactly?

It's a more reasonable argument.

Back in 3rd Ed., I assaulted a Baneblade (Imperial Armour) with a squad of terminators. First one with a chain fist penetrates, rolls chain reaction (1 pt damage + roll again), rolls it again, and on the third re-roll blows it up.

Another time my six man terminator squad takes six wounds from a Tau firewarrior squad, and I roll SIX fething 1's.

So, in my experience one of two things happens. A couple fire teams wipe them out to the man in one mag dump from their M4s or the terminators kill everyone and wipe their bottoms with the smoking hulls of a dozen M1A3 Abrams.