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.

BaronIveagh wrote:

purplefood wrote:Well we do have a basis for the assumption.
Cadia needs to maintain the Birth rates otherwise the population will begin to decline. It makes sense that unless the birth rate was outstripping the mortality rate they would try and keep any women in the Interior guard rather than send them to other planets.

Again, the problem is math:

At 1064 regiments of Cadians (based off the unit numbers of the most recently raised units for the Black Crusade) Cadia is only supporting 5,320,000 troops in the IG.

That's only about half the military of Russia, assuming that every regiment follows the standard sizes mentioned for the Cadian 8th and 91st.

They don't. Cadia also fields Armored Regiments and Mechanized Regiments, which follow standard organizational tables for those particular things though.

Compare this to Kreig, where a single regiment may number upwards of 250,000 troopers (though, granted, they also produce soldiers in factories somehow, though it's not clear if they're clones)

The "clones" part is iffy right now. It seems the best explanation, but it might also be simply that they've got testtubebaby facilities.

Kanluwen wrote:
They don't. Cadia also fields Armored Regiments and Mechanized Regiments, which follow standard organizational tables for those particular things though.

That *is* counting the Armored and mechanized regiments. Footsloggers only got to 840.

Cadian infantry: 840th
Mech Infantry: 212th
Cadian Armored: 12th

Remember kids:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale

BaronIveagh wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
They don't. Cadia also fields Armored Regiments and Mechanized Regiments, which follow standard organizational tables for those particular things though.

That *is* counting the Armored and mechanized regiments. Footsloggers only got to 840.

Then there's something wrong with your numbers.

Which I think I've found the source of in that you were going off of the unit numbers recently raised for the Black Crusade.

There were supposed to be at least 1k regiments already operating prior to that. They just weren't all within the sector.

Melissia wrote:Remember kids:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale

Mel, I think we proved that with the wild fluctuations in the size of Imperial ships and their crews alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Then there's something wrong with your numbers.

Which I think I've found the source of in that you were going off of the unit numbers recently raised for the Black Crusade.

There were supposed to be at least 1k regiments already operating prior to that. They just weren't all within the sector.

I admit that it's based on the flawed assumption that 840 comes after 839 still when the Imperium counts, but I think that regiments that are stated to be 'new' without any previous battle honors or history are, in fact, 'new'. The Imperium seems to recycle regiment numbers, but it also retains their previous battle honors.

The 840's first battle honor was Tyvok Fields, so...


Though I did miscount: It was 212th armored and 12th heavy tank company: Cadian mech infantry is counted in the same count as any other shock troop regiment. So the numbers would have to be revised downward since I counted all 12 heavy tank companies as full regiments.

DKoK's highest regiment I could find any mention of was the 1060th. So 840 isn't too far off that, considering Cadia doesn't grow people in vats.

Mech infantry are kind of a mixed bag.

Some sources have them being distinctly separate regiments from 'any other Shock Troop regiments', while others have the Shock Troop regiments having their own units that are mechanized.

Did you get a count of Kasrkin regiments? Cause they're fielded as well, since the Cadians tend to 'pft' at Schola Progenium Stormtroopers.

What about Youth Regiments?

Kanluwen wrote:Mech infantry are kind of a mixed bag.

Some sources have them being distinctly separate regiments from 'any other Shock Troop regiments', while others have the Shock Troop regiments having their own units that are mechanized.

Did you get a count of Kasrkin regiments? Cause they're fielded as well, since the Cadians tend to 'pft' at Schola Progenium Stormtroopers.

What about Youth Regiments?

No data available on either of those, but logically, since Kasrkin are something like the top 1% of the whiteshields and Cadian IG are the top 10% or so...

Whiteshields are also an unknown quantity. Very little post-1st edition information is available. Every Cadian takes part in the whiteshields, but it's not clear how long tehy serve if not picked up for the IG.

If I can add something to the discussion, can we really be sure the Munitorum gives the regiments their designation number based on chronological order of foundation alone? I know it's BL, which is hardly canon, and that we are speaking about Cadians, not Valhallans, but in the first book of Cain series, didn't they designate the combined regiment as 597th just because it fitted and no other regiment had that number?

They added the 2 previous numbers together and got that.
The numbers are usually chronological but can also be applied for different reasons so go figure.

On a seperate tangent, there's a thing I just noticed. For Eldar, the Dawn of War series has something like 5 for 5 for farseers being female (Macha, Taldeer, Caerys, Idranel, Elenwe) and the sole Autarch (Kayleth) is also female. The Eldar GW model line is 5 male farseers, 4 male Autarchs. This all seems kinda odd.

Not really. See, Relic wants more female characters because it appeals to a broader audience than GW does. Because Relic is a more intelligent company than GW, but that's an entirely different tangent.

iirc, the solitaire was female as well.

Though it should be noted that if you gave DoW II's farseer a helmet and a masculine voice, you could almost get away with calling it male. The feminine attributes are much less noticeable than they are on the autarch and DoW I farseer (who both have very obvious bumps in their armor for breasts).

Melissia wrote:Not really. See, Relic wants more female characters because it appeals to a broader audience than GW does. Because Relic is a more intelligent company than GW, but that's an entirely different tangent.

Though I think they did somewhat rectify it for the Dark Eldar model line, I'm hoping they do the same with the Eldar when they... eventually get around to updating them again. Until then, I have to keep taking parts from the wood elves.

I have never read or heard of women doing anything useful in the world of WH40k being the Sisters of Battle or the Imperial Gaurd

I hope you're trolling...

... otherwise, Patience Kys and Kara Swole might want to have a "talk" with you.

How about Inquisitor Vale?

I'd forgotten her name, actually, but that's another one.

Heck, there's a ton of female Inquisitors in the books and in the fluff that are definitely movers-and-shakers in their respective regions of the Imperium, to say nothing of the female Rogue Traders who are heads of their dynasties and are out there beyond the edge, kicking xeno butt and raking in huge profits in the name of the Emperor.

I like kicking ass and raking in huge profits... in the Emperor's name, of course....

Ummm... Let' see. On females and the IoM:

Inquisitors: Check
Ecclesiarchs of various rank and standing: Check. Think I read somewhere about a female Cardinal...
High ranking Administratum officers: Check
Rogue traders: Check
Officio Assassinorum: Check
Mechanicum: Are they even males anymore?.
Schola Psykana/Adeptus Astra Telepathica/Navigators/Navis Nobilite: More than likely.
Adeptus Astartes: Obviously, no fems amongst the poster boys of the mysoginistic 80s.
IG Commanders:... I'd love to see an "Iron Lady" type character, a Lady Malys or O'Shasherra for the Imperial Guard. None so far.
Imperial Guard soldiery: Check. Depends on planet of origin, though.

As a rule, I'd say the Imperium gets more egalitarian as you climb up the social ladder. The galaxy offers a wide range of career opportunities for a well-to-do lady with a taste for adventure and, considering the main business of the Imperium is war, most of them are in or around the military. Things are different for the lowest echelons of society, though. The Imperium's main business, as I wrote before, is war. War in an absolutely mind-numbing scale. And their currency is manpower.

Some worlds meet their tithes by pressing every single human being able to hold a lasgun into service (Valhalla? Tanith?). Others produce clones in vats (Krieg). But I'm afraid most worlds (Mordian, Tallarn, Vostroya...) just recruit males and leave the soon-to-be widowers behind to nurture and educate the next batch of conscripts.

Cadia is surely different, though, being a fortress world on an extremely dangerous location to begin with. Even if the ladies are left behind to man the PDF, they'll have to deal with the threat of the Eye of Terror on a daily basis. Won't be surprised if any future mention of Cadian females describes them as even tougher than their male counterparts!.

Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Adeptus Astartes: Obviously, no fems amongst the poster boys of the mysoginistic 80s.
IG Commanders:... I'd love to see an "Iron Lady" type character, a Lady Malys or O'Shasherra for the Imperial Guard. None so far.
Imperial Guard soldiery: Check. Depends on planet of origin, though.

How about Regina Kasteen of the 597th?

Kriegsmen aren't clones... at least not in the true sense of the word.
Votroyan regiments are very specifically the firstborn sons.
There is no evidence either way AFAIK of Tallarn or Mordian regiments only being all-male.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Adeptus Astartes: Obviously, no fems amongst the poster boys of the mysoginistic 80s.
IG Commanders:... I'd love to see an "Iron Lady" type character, a Lady Malys or O'Shasherra for the Imperial Guard. None so far.
Imperial Guard soldiery: Check. Depends on planet of origin, though.

How about Regina Kasteen of the 597th?

Given that most Imperial Guard regiments are monogender, it's probably accurate to say that there are a lot of female colonels. You need a woman to lead your all-female regiments, after all. But Sulla later rises to the position of general, and iirc there's a comment somewhere indicating it's unusual to see a woman in that position.

Actually it was Lady General, rather than just general.

The main reason GW doesn't have many female characters is because they just don't think about it in the first place, they're not misogynistic, they're just lazy which has the same result without the ill intent.

Melissia wrote:Actually it was Lady General, rather than just general.

The main reason GW doesn't have many female characters is because they just don't think about it in the first place, they're not misogynistic, they're just lazy which has the same result without the ill intent.

Plus they seem to have trouble sculpting the female form. Up until recently that is, The Dark Eldar models are awesome.

purplefood wrote:
There is no evidence either way AFAIK of Tallarn or Mordian regiments only being all-male.

One of the Cain books had Tallarns in it, I think Trader's Hand, and they were disgusted by the idea of the Valhallans having women in their army, let alone a mixed regiment.

Not Definitive proof but a good guess.

Just a point -

While it is pretty barbaric for women to serve on front-line duty in the military (even the Soviets didn't do that), I wouldn't be surprised if all-female regiments are used fairly widely throughout the imperium.

For one, many planets are fairly barbaric in that way. Attilans, like the steppe hordes on earth, probably have women fighters, and other feral planets likely do the same.

Furthermore, many more planets than that are extremely desperate, or are just very cold and cruel, and judge it necessary to stoop to that level, and employ everyone in the slaughterhouse of their front. For example, Cadia is in constant threat of being destroyed by the dark powers, and therefore might find it necessary to sacrifice their moral high ground for another few regiments. Another example is of course Valhalla, known for meat-grinding tactics and heartless sensibilities.

Hmm... not sure why its more barbaric to have women front line troops than men. Or are we back to assuming that forcing young women to be nasty fighters somehow detracts from their natural fluffiness and that their propensity to faint clean away in stressful situations might cause problems in the trenches?

Also if we are referencing WW2 then the Soviet army did have female front line troops. Not necessarily riflemen, but a lot of the anti-aircraft and anti-tank detachments were all-female.

This has probably been done by now (and could be classed as irrelevant, but whatever), but I think most Western nations have women in their front line forces now. Israel certainly maintains all-female combat formations.

Back in the 40k universe, however, its a big place and anything can happen. The fact that there are multiple references all throughout the Canon of effective female combatants would tend to support that its more than likely that there are all-female Cadian regiments.

prussia59 wrote:Just a point -

While it is pretty barbaric for women to serve on front-line duty in the military (even the Soviets didn't do that)

?

While everyone's heard about the female Soviet fighter pilots, the Soviets also used women as front-line ground combatants in World War 2. One of the most famous was Maria Oktyabrskaya. Her husband was a military officer who was killed early on during the German invasion. When she received word of his death, she sold everything she owned and donated the proceeds to the Soviet government to help finance the construction of a T-34 tank - with the stipulation that she be allowed to drive the tank in question. The Soviet government realized that they had a good propaganda opportunity on their hands, and agreed. She was accepted into the military, and assigned as the driver of "her" tank, which she nicknamed 'Fighting Girlfriend'. Despite the attention-getting manner of her enlistment, she became recognized as a couragous and skilled member of her tank crew. Unfortunately, she was KIA in either late '43 or early '44.

It's somewhat difficult to locate information on most of the women who served on the ground in English language sources, but here are a couple of links with very basic information -

http://www.museum-t-34.ru/en/ngroup.php?id=3 (scroll down about four fifths of the way down the page to 'Women and Tanks')
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=117307&start=0

Israel certainly does, Flinty, as it is in a position like Cadia. At any moment about to be swallowed up by neighboring forces bent on doing it harm. It also maintains a draft.

But, I'm afraid you've gotten the wrong impression, because while Western nations allow women to serve their country in their militaries, they are not stationed in front line stations.

Now, this being said, only about 10% of the entire military is classified as front-line, and the other 90% does see combat. But I stick to my original statement as true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eumerin wrote:

prussia59 wrote:Just a point -

While it is pretty barbaric for women to serve on front-line duty in the military (even the Soviets didn't do that)

?

While everyone's heard about the female Soviet fighter pilots, the Soviets also used women as front-line ground combatants in World War 2. One of the most famous was Maria Oktyabrskaya. Her husband was a military officer who was killed early on during the German invasion. When she received word of his death, she sold everything she owned and donated the proceeds to the Soviet government to help finance the construction of a T-34 tank - with the stipulation that she be allowed to drive the tank in question. The Soviet government realized that they had a good propaganda opportunity on their hands, and agreed. She was accepted into the military, and assigned as the driver of "her" tank, which she nicknamed 'Fighting Girlfriend'. Despite the attention-getting manner of her enlistment, she became recognized as a couragous and skilled member of her tank crew. Unfortunately, she was KIA in either late '43 or early '44.

It's somewhat difficult to locate information on most of the women who served on the ground in English language sources, but here are a couple of links with very basic information -

http://www.museum-t-34.ru/en/ngroup.php?id=3 (scroll down about four fifths of the way down the page to 'Women and Tanks')
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=117307&start=0

And thank you for correcting me. I was mistaken.

prussia59 wrote:While it is pretty barbaric for women to serve on front-line duty in the military (even the Soviets didn't do that)

No it's not... and.. uhm... yes they did.

It is not barbaric to allow women to serve their nation on the front lines of battle. That's just sexist.