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.

 PhillyT wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Indeed. The closest real world equivalent I could think of is NATO and the USSR.

NATO gives it's soldiers the best tech they can acquire. The USSR gave their soldiers reliable but fairly basic armaments.

This isn't really true. The various top level armaments and munitions for the USSR and NATO were roughly the same with only tactical goals defining a difference ie. Abrams were made to be fast and multi-roled while T80 were made for massed tank warfare on the European front.

The top level planes were similarly effective, though NATO often had more of the newest versions due to having a larger population.

On the soldier level, there was no difference in performance for infantry weapons. An M4 and an AK105 are about the same in terms of potential suppression and killing. M16 were about the same as AKM.

And from a logistics perspective I'd happily take an AKM over an M16A1. AKM's are hardier and easier to clean, do a lot more damage if they hit (and arguably the greater mass of the bullet probably has a slightly better ability to suppress), plus it penetrates better than the 5.56. The only downfall of the AK's is that with the larger caliber (excluding the AK-74, which IIRC is the same caliber as NATO 5.56), they're harder to control when shooting.

Actually, they both had some pretty different design philosophies. They were both on roughly the same tech level, it's just that the Soviets were more into mass production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#AK-74_vs_M16A2

The M16 and its variants are made by dozens of manufactures around the world, to the highest standards "the goal of which is to ensure that products designed for military use meet the necessary requirements with regard to quality, durability, ruggedness, commonality, interchangeability, total cost of ownership, logistics and other military and defense-related objectives."

The AK-47 was designed to be a cheap, simple, easy to manufacture assault rifle,[272] perfectly matching Soviet military doctrine that treats equipment and weapons as disposable items.

Also, the AKs tend to be more easily mass produced

At peak production, Colt's manufacturing capacity was approximately 333,000 units per year

At peak production, Kalashnikov Concern (formerly Izhmash)[1] can produce around 95 units per hour (about 832,000 units per year).

Also note that the M16 was made out of an aluminium alloy, a more "advanced" material. The AKs tended to be made out of simple steel and wood.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Indeed. The closest real world equivalent I could think of is NATO and the USSR.

NATO gives it's soldiers the best tech they can acquire. The USSR gave their soldiers reliable but fairly basic armaments.

This isn't really true. The various top level armaments and munitions for the USSR and NATO were roughly the same with only tactical goals defining a difference ie. Abrams were made to be fast and multi-roled while T80 were made for massed tank warfare on the European front.

The top level planes were similarly effective, though NATO often had more of the newest versions due to having a larger population.

On the soldier level, there was no difference in performance for infantry weapons. An M4 and an AK105 are about the same in terms of potential suppression and killing. M16 were about the same as AKM.

And from a logistics perspective I'd happily take an AKM over an M16A1. AKM's are hardier and easier to clean, do a lot more damage if they hit (and arguably the greater mass of the bullet probably has a slightly better ability to suppress), plus it penetrates better than the 5.56. The only downfall of the AK's is that with the larger caliber (excluding the AK-74, which IIRC is the same caliber as NATO 5.56), they're harder to control when shooting.

They are heavier and less accurate though, and the M16 is a bit more ergonomic. For long campaigns the AK is probably better though.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The tau median is about at the level of a fire warrior, all tau have the high-tech stuff, because it is not high-tech to them.

Citation needed. What's the percentage of Fire Warriors to, say, Earth Caste?

A lot more earth caste, as the earth caste to all the production and design/

Then the FW is not the median, and is thus not eligible for use as a point of comparison to the median.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The tau median is about at the level of a fire warrior, all tau have the high-tech stuff, because it is not high-tech to them.

Citation needed. What's the percentage of Fire Warriors to, say, Earth Caste?

A lot more earth caste, as the earth caste to all the production and design/

Then the FW is not the median, and is thus not eligible for use as a point of comparison to the median.

It's the median for armed forces (which is what we are going on mostly). The thing with tau is that there is very little info on tau outside of their army. We do know that most hard labor is done with drones (or possibly not, it's hard to tell). Also, tau don't appear to "own" anything, they have stuff that they are given.

Because they're space-Communists. There's no personal property in Communism.

However, if we want to compare median infantry to median infantry between the Tau and the Imperium, we'd need a breakdown of their organizational charts. While the FW is the baseline Tau soldier... how many Kroot or Vespid or insert-other-member-species-here do they actually field, compared to the Fire Warriors? Obviously, the FW get the focus since that's the product line, but in-universe, do 100 FW show up to support 50,000 Vespid Swarm-Warriors? This would put the FW more on the level of Stormtroopers or even Space Marines.

 PhillyT wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Indeed. The closest real world equivalent I could think of is NATO and the USSR.

NATO gives it's soldiers the best tech they can acquire. The USSR gave their soldiers reliable but fairly basic armaments.

This isn't really true. The various top level armaments and munitions for the USSR and NATO were roughly the same with only tactical goals defining a difference ie. Abrams were made to be fast and multi-roled while T80 were made for massed tank warfare on the European front.

The top level planes were similarly effective, though NATO often had more of the newest versions due to having a larger population.

On the soldier level, there was no difference in performance for infantry weapons. An M4 and an AK105 are about the same in terms of potential suppression and killing. M16 were about the same as AKM.

not sure about that. Nato Aircraft were usually a mark above their eastern block counterparts or they were 5-10 years older. In addition the real high tech expensive things the USSR had no answers to. Stealth aircraft? Silent Submarines? Super Carriers?

Wow! A couple of days at work, and this thing took off!

Good news, everyone! I was promoted recently! I now might be able to afford to get myself a few Tiger Sharks in the near future! Hurray!

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
For the record, plasma pulse technology is not the same as plasma-rifle technology.

Plasma rifle technology is the stuff pretty much everyone has. Imperial STC, Eldar etc. It contains plasma then spits it out. Containment is the main difference between STC and Tau designs. The Tau aren't expendables and demand reliability from standard equipment. Frankly, that's a better technological philosophy than the AdMech has.

Plasma pulse technology converts ammunition into plasma and then fires it. It can be and is upscaled beyond that of man-portable weaponry. It is far more advanced, because it takes the concepts of plasma weaponry and that of mass accelerators to produce a weapon more powerful than a bolter yet easily mass produced like a lasgun. Oh, and they've also bolted a gyroscopic aim stabiliser and auto-aim features to that as well.

So yeah, the Tau have mastered Plasma weaponry, because they're not only able to construct plasma weapons, but they've applied the scientific principles to create a whole other class of weaponry around it.

The Tau are the most advanced race when it comes to what you could call the science of the Materium. However, the 40k Universe also contains the Immaterium, of which the Eldar are masters and which gives the Imperium an edge on the Tau in areas like FTL travel, teleportation etc. The Tau are catching up by the end of M41 though.

Not exactly. Have you seen the size of Tau plasma weapons? They aren't hand-held. The Imperium have compressed their tech, I'm sure if they unworked the plasma gun and made it with more complicated and larger components they could make one of just as much strength but without a chance of hurting the user. That is if they mounted it on Terminators, which the Dark Angels actually do, with no side-effects.

 Psienesis wrote:
Because they're space-Communists. There's no personal property in Communism.

However, if we want to compare median infantry to median infantry between the Tau and the Imperium, we'd need a breakdown of their organizational charts. While the FW is the baseline Tau soldier... how many Kroot or Vespid or insert-other-member-species-here do they actually field, compared to the Fire Warriors? Obviously, the FW get the focus since that's the product line, but in-universe, do 100 FW show up to support 50,000 Vespid Swarm-Warriors? This would put the FW more on the level of Stormtroopers or even Space Marines.

FWs are the backbone of the tau military. They are the vast majority. Kroot an vespids are only the majority on kroot or vespid planets.

Co'tor Shas wrote:It's a good median. How about this, how advanced is the average tech, tau still win on that one.

Only because sample size massively skews the mathematical average.

Say the four castes are of roughly equal size. The sample is still relatively small - perhaps a trillion Tau, a quarter of which are Fire Warriors. The 'average' tech level is going to be much higher than the IoM's because you're looking at comparing a quarter of a trillion against several hundred trillion.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And the USSR had a lot of soldiers. Hey, this reminds me of something.

Yep.
The USSR is actually very similar to the IoM. The IoM even have a shrine to a preserved dead guy

He's just resting.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
For the record, plasma pulse technology is not the same as plasma-rifle technology.

Plasma rifle technology is the stuff pretty much everyone has. Imperial STC, Eldar etc. It contains plasma then spits it out. Containment is the main difference between STC and Tau designs. The Tau aren't expendables and demand reliability from standard equipment. Frankly, that's a better technological philosophy than the AdMech has.

Plasma pulse technology converts ammunition into plasma and then fires it. It can be and is upscaled beyond that of man-portable weaponry. It is far more advanced, because it takes the concepts of plasma weaponry and that of mass accelerators to produce a weapon more powerful than a bolter yet easily mass produced like a lasgun. Oh, and they've also bolted a gyroscopic aim stabiliser and auto-aim features to that as well.

So yeah, the Tau have mastered Plasma weaponry, because they're not only able to construct plasma weapons, but they've applied the scientific principles to create a whole other class of weaponry around it.

The Tau are the most advanced race when it comes to what you could call the science of the Materium. However, the 40k Universe also contains the Immaterium, of which the Eldar are masters and which gives the Imperium an edge on the Tau in areas like FTL travel, teleportation etc. The Tau are catching up by the end of M41 though.

Not exactly. Have you seen the size of Tau plasma weapons? They aren't hand-held. The Imperium have compressed their tech, I'm sure if they unworked the plasma gun and made it with more complicated and larger components they could make one of just as much strength but without a chance of hurting the user. That is if they mounted it on Terminators, which the Dark Angels actually do, with no side-effects.

Terminators can take plasma guns outside of HH since when?

 Exergy wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Indeed. The closest real world equivalent I could think of is NATO and the USSR.

NATO gives it's soldiers the best tech they can acquire. The USSR gave their soldiers reliable but fairly basic armaments.

This isn't really true. The various top level armaments and munitions for the USSR and NATO were roughly the same with only tactical goals defining a difference ie. Abrams were made to be fast and multi-roled while T80 were made for massed tank warfare on the European front.

The top level planes were similarly effective, though NATO often had more of the newest versions due to having a larger population.

On the soldier level, there was no difference in performance for infantry weapons. An M4 and an AK105 are about the same in terms of potential suppression and killing. M16 were about the same as AKM.

not sure about that. Nato Aircraft were usually a mark above their eastern block counterparts or they were 5-10 years older. In addition the real high tech expensive things the USSR had no answers to. Stealth aircraft? Silent Submarines? Super Carriers?

The S-300 and S-400 have never gone up against American stealth aircraft. We're not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

As for the sea war, the USSR never planned on winning at sea- just holding the Americans long enough to finish off Western Europe with its 90-some armored/mechanized divisions (I think the 90 figure was both, but it might have just been armored, and it might have included infantry as well). The Russian plan against carriers were their own submarines- some of which were very good- and missile-armed cruisers. How successful they might have been is debatable, but we did spend a lot of money developing the Aegis system to defend against such an attack.

In the hands of good Soviet pilots, a MiG-31 or MiG-29 compares similarly to the F-15 or F-16, respectively. At the latter end of the Cold War, if we'd gone to war in '88 or '89, the Su-27 would have torn the USAF and Navy to ribbons. The R-27 missile far outclassed anything the Americans had during the cold war and the plane itself is more agile than anything the US fielded.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
For the record, plasma pulse technology is not the same as plasma-rifle technology.

Plasma rifle technology is the stuff pretty much everyone has. Imperial STC, Eldar etc. It contains plasma then spits it out. Containment is the main difference between STC and Tau designs. The Tau aren't expendables and demand reliability from standard equipment. Frankly, that's a better technological philosophy than the AdMech has.

Plasma pulse technology converts ammunition into plasma and then fires it. It can be and is upscaled beyond that of man-portable weaponry. It is far more advanced, because it takes the concepts of plasma weaponry and that of mass accelerators to produce a weapon more powerful than a bolter yet easily mass produced like a lasgun. Oh, and they've also bolted a gyroscopic aim stabiliser and auto-aim features to that as well.

So yeah, the Tau have mastered Plasma weaponry, because they're not only able to construct plasma weapons, but they've applied the scientific principles to create a whole other class of weaponry around it.

The Tau are the most advanced race when it comes to what you could call the science of the Materium. However, the 40k Universe also contains the Immaterium, of which the Eldar are masters and which gives the Imperium an edge on the Tau in areas like FTL travel, teleportation etc. The Tau are catching up by the end of M41 though.

Not exactly. Have you seen the size of Tau plasma weapons? They aren't hand-held. The Imperium have compressed their tech, I'm sure if they unworked the plasma gun and made it with more complicated and larger components they could make one of just as much strength but without a chance of hurting the user. That is if they mounted it on Terminators, which the Dark Angels actually do, with no side-effects.

The tau had plasma weaponry before they encountered humans (after the warp storm). In the fluff, tau plasma rifles are stronger than something like a plasma pistol (being that it fire more plasma), but it still "less powerful"
Than it could be (i.e. they decide to sensibly make it so the don't explode).

The US has shrines to preserved dead guys, too, we're just not as good at the preserving bit:



We also got these two in a shop in Seattle:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
For the record, plasma pulse technology is not the same as plasma-rifle technology.

Plasma rifle technology is the stuff pretty much everyone has. Imperial STC, Eldar etc. It contains plasma then spits it out. Containment is the main difference between STC and Tau designs. The Tau aren't expendables and demand reliability from standard equipment. Frankly, that's a better technological philosophy than the AdMech has.

Plasma pulse technology converts ammunition into plasma and then fires it. It can be and is upscaled beyond that of man-portable weaponry. It is far more advanced, because it takes the concepts of plasma weaponry and that of mass accelerators to produce a weapon more powerful than a bolter yet easily mass produced like a lasgun. Oh, and they've also bolted a gyroscopic aim stabiliser and auto-aim features to that as well.

So yeah, the Tau have mastered Plasma weaponry, because they're not only able to construct plasma weapons, but they've applied the scientific principles to create a whole other class of weaponry around it.

The Tau are the most advanced race when it comes to what you could call the science of the Materium. However, the 40k Universe also contains the Immaterium, of which the Eldar are masters and which gives the Imperium an edge on the Tau in areas like FTL travel, teleportation etc. The Tau are catching up by the end of M41 though.

Not exactly. Have you seen the size of Tau plasma weapons? They aren't hand-held. The Imperium have compressed their tech, I'm sure if they unworked the plasma gun and made it with more complicated and larger components they could make one of just as much strength but without a chance of hurting the user. That is if they mounted it on Terminators, which the Dark Angels actually do, with no side-effects.

Terminators can take plasma guns outside of HH since when?

DA can put plasma cannons on theirs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:



Not exactly. Have you seen the size of Tau plasma weapons? They aren't hand-held. The Imperium have compressed their tech, I'm sure if they unworked the plasma gun and made it with more complicated and larger components they could make one of just as much strength but without a chance of hurting the user. That is if they mounted it on Terminators, which the Dark Angels actually do, with no side-effects.

The Imperium didn't "compress" the technology. Someone dug up an STC that someone else- most certainly not the IoM and probably not even someone human- and the IoM mass-produced it with absolutely no idea how or why it works.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Because they're space-Communists. There's no personal property in Communism.

However, if we want to compare median infantry to median infantry between the Tau and the Imperium, we'd need a breakdown of their organizational charts. While the FW is the baseline Tau soldier... how many Kroot or Vespid or insert-other-member-species-here do they actually field, compared to the Fire Warriors? Obviously, the FW get the focus since that's the product line, but in-universe, do 100 FW show up to support 50,000 Vespid Swarm-Warriors? This would put the FW more on the level of Stormtroopers or even Space Marines.

Hotshot lasgun is S3 Ap3. Neutron blaster is S5 Ap 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


They are heavier and less accurate though, and the M16 is a bit more ergonomic. For long campaigns the AK is probably better though.

The AM is also a lot more reliable. An M-16 jams easily without constant cleaning. An AK is tougher, handles sand and snow better.

A jammed M-16 is slightly behind par with a steel-tipped spear.

Sigh. Again with the 'humans are stupid' thing.

Look. Norton.

The Guild Mechanicus created the STCs and provided the technology for humanity to reach the stars and create the DAoT human empire.

The Guild Mechanicus had some setbacks, including the Iron Men, the birth of the Scrapcode virus, and then the Warp Storms of the Age of Strife. When the Iron Men rebelled, they created the traditional of Oral Manuals. When the Scrapcode virus was born, they contained it in the vaults under Mars. When the Warp Storms finished off the DAoT Empire, they suffered a horrific backlash that destroyed most of their knowledge base, forcing them to rely on a few aged survivors and their Oral Manuals. Over time, they started to treat the Oral Manuals as scripture, likely as a social control method. They still had a lot of old tech, though.

Then the Unification Wars ended, and the Great Crusade began, with a lot of DAoT tech still in use. Then Kelbor Hal unleashed the Scrapcode virus again, destroying everything and literally reducing the Guild Mechanicus to a handful of survivors, who renamed themselves the Adeptus Mechanicum during the post-heresy rebuilding of society and the foundation of the Imperium of Man as we know it today.

That is how it happened.

The STCs are of human make.

The DAoT is a real thing that happened in the future history of 40k.

That is where all the evidence points. That is what has been outright stated by characters in universe. That is what the fluff documents state.

That. Is. What. Happened.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


They are heavier and less accurate though, and the M16 is a bit more ergonomic. For long campaigns the AK is probably better though.

The AM is also a lot more reliable. An M-16 jams easily without constant cleaning. An AK is tougher, handles sand and snow better.

A jammed M-16 is slightly behind par with a steel-tipped spear.

Yep, which is why the AKM is superior on long campaigns.
For a special ops sort of thing the M16 would be better due to its weight, range and accuracy.

For long periods of combat or constant exposure to the elements the Russian assault rifle is better hands down.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The tau median is about at the level of a fire warrior, all tau have the high-tech stuff, because it is not high-tech to them.

Citation needed. What's the percentage of Fire Warriors to, say, Earth Caste?

A lot more earth caste, as the earth caste to all the production and design/

Then the FW is not the median, and is thus not eligible for use as a point of comparison to the median.

I'm not sure that's a smart thing to say, since the median human in the Imperium is probably at the same tech level as Earth right now. There's a crap ton of worlds in the Imperium in the stone, bronze, and iron ages. (Fenris comes readily to mind)

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Feudal_World http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Feral_World

In the Tau Empire, everyone has access to drones. Every soldier has access to pulse rifles. Every one of all castes have access to computers. In the Imperium, sections of the population (large enough to get mention in the core rulebook) lack access to electricity.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


They are heavier and less accurate though, and the M16 is a bit more ergonomic. For long campaigns the AK is probably better though.

The AM is also a lot more reliable. An M-16 jams easily without constant cleaning. An AK is tougher, handles sand and snow better.

A jammed M-16 is slightly behind par with a steel-tipped spear.

Yep, which is why the AKM is superior on long campaigns.
For a special ops sort of thing the M16 would be better due to its weight, range and accuracy.

For long periods of combat or constant exposure to the elements the Russian assault rifle is better hands down.

Not to mention in a long protracted war, 7.62 is incredibly easy to find virtually everywhere.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Because they're space-Communists. There's no personal property in Communism.

However, if we want to compare median infantry to median infantry between the Tau and the Imperium, we'd need a breakdown of their organizational charts. While the FW is the baseline Tau soldier... how many Kroot or Vespid or insert-other-member-species-here do they actually field, compared to the Fire Warriors? Obviously, the FW get the focus since that's the product line, but in-universe, do 100 FW show up to support 50,000 Vespid Swarm-Warriors? This would put the FW more on the level of Stormtroopers or even Space Marines.

Hotshot lasgun is S3 Ap3. Neutron blaster is S5 Ap 3.

The HSL also has a higher rate of fire and longer range, iirc.
Power isn't everything. Though it certainly helps.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Indeed. The closest real world equivalent I could think of is NATO and the USSR.

NATO gives it's soldiers the best tech they can acquire. The USSR gave their soldiers reliable but fairly basic armaments.

This isn't really true. The various top level armaments and munitions for the USSR and NATO were roughly the same with only tactical goals defining a difference ie. Abrams were made to be fast and multi-roled while T80 were made for massed tank warfare on the European front.

The top level planes were similarly effective, though NATO often had more of the newest versions due to having a larger population.

On the soldier level, there was no difference in performance for infantry weapons. An M4 and an AK105 are about the same in terms of potential suppression and killing. M16 were about the same as AKM.

not sure about that. Nato Aircraft were usually a mark above their eastern block counterparts or they were 5-10 years older. In addition the real high tech expensive things the USSR had no answers to. Stealth aircraft? Silent Submarines? Super Carriers?

The S-300 and S-400 have never gone up against American stealth aircraft. We're not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

As for the sea war, the USSR never planned on winning at sea- just holding the Americans long enough to finish off Western Europe with its 90-some armored/mechanized divisions (I think the 90 figure was both, but it might have just been armored, and it might have included infantry as well). The Russian plan against carriers were their own submarines- some of which were very good- and missile-armed cruisers. How successful they might have been is debatable, but we did spend a lot of money developing the Aegis system to defend against such an attack.

USSR subs were not match for US and even british subs. They stayed in the Arctic Ocean to launch long range strikes or to try to patrol coastal waters for US boombers.

The USSR did spend a considerable amount of money building aircraft carriers like Kiev and Admiral Kuznetsof classes. Though smaller, the Admiral Kuznetsof class were nearly as long and wide as the Nimitz class, although they lacked nuclear power and advanced electronics. If they were comfortable with their ground troops, one would wonder why they spent all that money on aircraft carriers.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

In the hands of good Soviet pilots, a MiG-31 or MiG-29 compares similarly to the F-15 or F-16, respectively. At the latter end of the Cold War, if we'd gone to war in '88 or '89, the Su-27 would have torn the USAF and Navy to ribbons. The R-27 missile far outclassed anything the Americans had during the cold war and the plane itself is more agile than anything the US fielded.

My point exactly. The USSR equivalent tech came about a decade after the US aircraft entered service.

The F15 was introduced into front line service 3 years before the MIG29 got off the ground and 7 years before the MIG 29 entered service
The F16 was only 2 years behind the F15 and thus also beat the MIG29 into service by 5 years.

The MIG31 was merely an upgrade of the MIG25, lacked maneuverability or multirole functionality. It's very fast in a straight line and has decent radar and missiles to engage bombers at range. It is not a particularly effective air superiority fighter. The SU27 is a better match for the F-15, but it did not enter service until 1985, 9 years after the F-15 was deployed.

It is true that the SU-27 is probably better than the F-15, but the US has moved on. No one is likely to think it in the same class as the F-22.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


They are heavier and less accurate though, and the M16 is a bit more ergonomic. For long campaigns the AK is probably better though.

The AM is also a lot more reliable. An M-16 jams easily without constant cleaning. An AK is tougher, handles sand and snow better.

A jammed M-16 is slightly behind par with a steel-tipped spear.

Yep, which is why the AKM is superior on long campaigns.
For a special ops sort of thing the M16 would be better due to its weight, range and accuracy.

For long periods of combat or constant exposure to the elements the Russian assault rifle is better hands down.

I agree. A lot of Westerners like to crap on the Russians simply because they're not Western. There are a number of key areas (air-to-air missiles, active defenses on tanks, aerodynamics) where the Russians (and the Soviets before) are fielding systems much better than their western counterparts.

I imagine if we had a thread comparing US air to air missiles to Russian missiles, we'd see a lot of overlap between pro-westerners there and people here who say stupid things like "humanity used to be on the same technological level as the Eldar" or "bolters are better than pulse rifles, it's just GW had to make the game balanced."

The Imperium didn't "compress" the technology. Someone dug up an STC that someone else- most certainly not the IoM and probably not even someone human- and the IoM mass-produced it with absolutely no idea how or why it works.

STC is technology that is human in origin, from the time when Mankind began colonizing the galaxy, and most certainly had complete and total understanding of the technology (which is how they build a "press button, receive tank" construction platform) involved.

To suggest that it was not shows a profound lack of understanding of what you're arguing against, it also indicates a lack of knowledge in understanding why the AdMech has such an in-universe focus on recovering an intact STC. A fully-functional STC restores Mankind's scientific understanding to Eldar levels.

Hotshot lasgun is S3 Ap3. Neutron blaster is S5 Ap 3.

With 18" range vs 12"... sure, the Vespid hit harder, but they have to walk into the Stormtrooper's killing field in order to fire... and the ST has superior armor (4+ T3 vs 6+ T3).

I imagine if we had a thread comparing US air to air missiles to Russian missiles, we'd see a lot of overlap between pro-westerners there and people here who say stupid things like "humanity used to be on the same technological level as the Eldar" or "bolters are better than pulse rifles, it's just GW had to make the game balanced."

Ah, so now we're resorting to ad hominem attacks? 'K. Done with you.

So the real question rather than all this Tau circle jerkin, the question of is most archeotech of human origin?

its a giant obnoxious maybe

its definitely not Tau tech as they had not existed back when.

It is entirely possible during or before the DAoT they could of come up or traded for a lot of there tech. its just crap tastic now because of grim dark fear and stuff.

Edit: Ya know the neutron blaster and hotshot lasgun works completely differently right? its like apples and cumquats.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Because they're space-Communists. There's no personal property in Communism.

However, if we want to compare median infantry to median infantry between the Tau and the Imperium, we'd need a breakdown of their organizational charts. While the FW is the baseline Tau soldier... how many Kroot or Vespid or insert-other-member-species-here do they actually field, compared to the Fire Warriors? Obviously, the FW get the focus since that's the product line, but in-universe, do 100 FW show up to support 50,000 Vespid Swarm-Warriors? This would put the FW more on the level of Stormtroopers or even Space Marines.

Hotshot lasgun is S3 Ap3. Neutron blaster is S5 Ap 3.

The HSL also has a higher rate of fire and longer range, iirc.
Power isn't everything. Though it certainly helps.

The HSL and NB both have 18" range. The HSL is rapid fire and the NB is assault 1. The HSL can't be fired before a charge- which is what the NB is designed for (theoretically, because in actuality Vespids lack the stats to back up their purpose in fluff). In other words, the point at which a HSL gets an extra shot is roughly the same point at which NBs fire and are followed up by melee combat from jump troops.

 Exergy wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Indeed. The closest real world equivalent I could think of is NATO and the USSR.

NATO gives it's soldiers the best tech they can acquire. The USSR gave their soldiers reliable but fairly basic armaments.

This isn't really true. The various top level armaments and munitions for the USSR and NATO were roughly the same with only tactical goals defining a difference ie. Abrams were made to be fast and multi-roled while T80 were made for massed tank warfare on the European front.

The top level planes were similarly effective, though NATO often had more of the newest versions due to having a larger population.

On the soldier level, there was no difference in performance for infantry weapons. An M4 and an AK105 are about the same in terms of potential suppression and killing. M16 were about the same as AKM.

not sure about that. Nato Aircraft were usually a mark above their eastern block counterparts or they were 5-10 years older. In addition the real high tech expensive things the USSR had no answers to. Stealth aircraft? Silent Submarines? Super Carriers?

The S-300 and S-400 have never gone up against American stealth aircraft. We're not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

As for the sea war, the USSR never planned on winning at sea- just holding the Americans long enough to finish off Western Europe with its 90-some armored/mechanized divisions (I think the 90 figure was both, but it might have just been armored, and it might have included infantry as well). The Russian plan against carriers were their own submarines- some of which were very good- and missile-armed cruisers. How successful they might have been is debatable, but we did spend a lot of money developing the Aegis system to defend against such an attack.

USSR subs were not match for US and even british subs. They stayed in the Arctic Ocean to launch long range strikes or to try to patrol coastal waters for US boombers.

The USSR did spend a considerable amount of money building aircraft carriers like Kiev and Admiral Kuznetsof classes. Though smaller, the Admiral Kuznetsof class were nearly as long and wide as the Nimitz class, although they lacked nuclear power and advanced electronics. If they were comfortable with their ground troops, one would wonder why they spent all that money on aircraft carriers.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

In the hands of good Soviet pilots, a MiG-31 or MiG-29 compares similarly to the F-15 or F-16, respectively. At the latter end of the Cold War, if we'd gone to war in '88 or '89, the Su-27 would have torn the USAF and Navy to ribbons. The R-27 missile far outclassed anything the Americans had during the cold war and the plane itself is more agile than anything the US fielded.

My point exactly. The USSR equivalent tech came about a decade after the US aircraft entered service.

The F15 was introduced into front line service 3 years before the MIG29 got off the ground and 7 years before the MIG 29 entered service
The F16 was only 2 years behind the F15 and thus also beat the MIG29 into service by 5 years.

The MIG31 was merely an upgrade of the MIG25, lacked maneuverability or multirole functionality. It's very fast in a straight line and has decent radar and missiles to engage bombers at range. It is not a particularly effective air superiority fighter. The SU27 is a better match for the F-15, but it did not enter service until 1985, 9 years after the F-15 was deployed.

It is true that the SU-27 is probably better than the F-15, but the US has moved on. No one is likely to think it in the same class as the F-22.

true but that's how arms races work, one side develops a new weapon, their oppisite faction develops something to counter it.

 Desubot wrote:
So the real question rather than all this Tau circle jerkin, the question of is most archeotech of human origin?

its a giant obnoxious maybe

its definitely not Tau tech as they had not existed back when.

It is entirely possible during or before the DAoT they could of come up or traded for a lot of there tech. its just crap tastic now because of grim dark fear and stuff.

Edit: Ya know the neutron blaster and hotshot lasgun works completely differently right? its like apples and cumquats.

No one is claiming it's Tau...

But given the ambiguity of the past, the inability of humanity to create devices that aren't cutting-edge by IRL standards, plus the mediocrity of many items we KNOW are from the DAoT (Predator tank, I'm looking at you)... do you REALLY think that the same society that saw the Predator as adequate could create an intelligent warship? Really? I just can't buy it. Since we know from the codexes that the Predator IS DAoT technology, and we don't know much about the starship, it stands to reason that the starship was made by someone else, like the Old Ones.

STCs designed the lasgun. STCs designed something built for purpose, it did not have to be fancy, merely to work, and (quite often) be cheap.

That's quite a leap in conclusion

Whats wrong with a predator?

Standardized chassis for easy replacement
good armament with standard sized rounds that are simple to make?
decent firepower for what it is

Realizing it was made to combat orks which doesn't give that much time for prep and can spout out anywhere.

seems like a great idea for accessibility rather than having to overhall EVERy manucatorium to build a brand new hover chassis for some sort of benefit..

BrianDavion wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Indeed. The closest real world equivalent I could think of is NATO and the USSR.

NATO gives it's soldiers the best tech they can acquire. The USSR gave their soldiers reliable but fairly basic armaments.

This isn't really true. The various top level armaments and munitions for the USSR and NATO were roughly the same with only tactical goals defining a difference ie. Abrams were made to be fast and multi-roled while T80 were made for massed tank warfare on the European front.

The top level planes were similarly effective, though NATO often had more of the newest versions due to having a larger population.

On the soldier level, there was no difference in performance for infantry weapons. An M4 and an AK105 are about the same in terms of potential suppression and killing. M16 were about the same as AKM.

not sure about that. Nato Aircraft were usually a mark above their eastern block counterparts or they were 5-10 years older. In addition the real high tech expensive things the USSR had no answers to. Stealth aircraft? Silent Submarines? Super Carriers?

The S-300 and S-400 have never gone up against American stealth aircraft. We're not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

As for the sea war, the USSR never planned on winning at sea- just holding the Americans long enough to finish off Western Europe with its 90-some armored/mechanized divisions (I think the 90 figure was both, but it might have just been armored, and it might have included infantry as well). The Russian plan against carriers were their own submarines- some of which were very good- and missile-armed cruisers. How successful they might have been is debatable, but we did spend a lot of money developing the Aegis system to defend against such an attack.

USSR subs were not match for US and even british subs. They stayed in the Arctic Ocean to launch long range strikes or to try to patrol coastal waters for US boombers.

The USSR did spend a considerable amount of money building aircraft carriers like Kiev and Admiral Kuznetsof classes. Though smaller, the Admiral Kuznetsof class were nearly as long and wide as the Nimitz class, although they lacked nuclear power and advanced electronics. If they were comfortable with their ground troops, one would wonder why they spent all that money on aircraft carriers.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

In the hands of good Soviet pilots, a MiG-31 or MiG-29 compares similarly to the F-15 or F-16, respectively. At the latter end of the Cold War, if we'd gone to war in '88 or '89, the Su-27 would have torn the USAF and Navy to ribbons. The R-27 missile far outclassed anything the Americans had during the cold war and the plane itself is more agile than anything the US fielded.

My point exactly. The USSR equivalent tech came about a decade after the US aircraft entered service.

The F15 was introduced into front line service 3 years before the MIG29 got off the ground and 7 years before the MIG 29 entered service
The F16 was only 2 years behind the F15 and thus also beat the MIG29 into service by 5 years.

The MIG31 was merely an upgrade of the MIG25, lacked maneuverability or multirole functionality. It's very fast in a straight line and has decent radar and missiles to engage bombers at range. It is not a particularly effective air superiority fighter. The SU27 is a better match for the F-15, but it did not enter service until 1985, 9 years after the F-15 was deployed.

It is true that the SU-27 is probably better than the F-15, but the US has moved on. No one is likely to think it in the same class as the F-22.

true but that's how arms races work, one side develops a new weapon, their oppisite faction develops something to counter it.

In this case, the MiG-25 prompted the F-15 as we know it, since the MiG-25 was easily the best fighter in the world at the time.

As for now? Advances in radar technology in the future may make stealth not-stealthy, meaning the more agile fighter with the best missiles wins... and that's the Su-27 and her successors.

As for the MiG-31 vs F-15... the primary armament of the MiG-31 is the AA-9, which has three times the range of the best version of Sparrow. When you can launch your full range of missiles at an enemy fighter and turn around long before said enemy can close to fight, it doesn't matter much how well you maneuver... even if most of those missiles miss, which is likely, given they were made for hitting bombers. At most points of time, the AA-6 also compares favorably to Sparrow (although it would mean a fight in which the F-15 got to fight back).

If you're comfortable with your ground troops, you spend money elsewhere.