The imperial guard v modern day army

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.

**Snogs**

WoW

Its so hard to think that there is anyone that could come to think of the IG ever standing up to any modern army.

Someone said they are all but fearless and a 30% death ratio would mean nothing to them...try a 100%
Have you ever even read about the 10s of THOUSANDS of deaths the Soviets had in wave attacks vs the Germans.
There is just no way that a army of the IG could stand vs a "real" army.

And if you bring tanks into it. That will only get worse for the IG.
Im sorry but there is no tank in the IG that comes close to being as good as any main line battle tank of the modern world.
And air power.....at best the IG air ships are = to a Jet from the Korean War. And that would be on a good day.

The only way any army in the 40k game "if real" could beat a modern army would be from orbit.

Maybe you should say who would win in a 100vs100 knife fight...then id go with the IG.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Laodamia wrote:
Grakmar wrote:2 words: Air Support

A modern military will have absolutely no problem taking out an army of IG or SM or any xenos army you can think of simply due to the air support available.

All of the IG tanks would be destroyed miles and miles before they ever reached the battlefield.

+1

Totally agree. That's QFT.

Let's compare IG and some western world military.

The training and the experience of the guardsmen will depend on his world of origin. If its cadia, our boys are pretty much busted in terms of experience or combat training. If it's some backwater world of the IoM, we would not have much to worry about.

The equipment of guardsmen also depends on their world of origin. A flak armour will probably stop a couple of 7.62 mm bullets before breaking. The problem is that ALL of our modern soldiers are equipped with automatic weapons with a firing rate of rouglhly 700 bullets/min. This means that a sustained burst of bullets from a modern assault rifle will make a mockery of the guard's armour.
Lasguns are powerful, but are semi-auto weapons with a very limited rate of fire. Which means that they will have fewer chances of touching our boys.

The tactics are also important. Guard fighting tactics are inspired of WWII tactics, which are no match for modern armies' manoeuvers and tactics.

Finally, what about the guard's armour support? All their tanks are big and powerful. Massively powerful usually. An M1 Abrams will field a 105 mm cannon and 12.7 mm machineguns as secondaries and co-ax. A LRBT will field a 120 mm cannon as main, probably lascannons as sponsons and hull-mounted weapons, and maybe even a pintle-mounted storm bolter and a co-ax heavy bolter. It is clear that in terms of firepower, we're beaten. But a LRBT is big, really big. It has roughly the same weight than an abrams (the abrams is a bit heavier), but is a lot taller, with big, flat flanks. On the other hand, an abrams has a relatively low profile with oblique flanks, for a better resistance to armour-piercing rounds. I think a LRBT would get an airstrike in the face before even managing to touch our tanks.

I say we win.

And the Imperial Guard doesn't have air support? REALLY?

Armageddon Class Battleship>Us

Snogs wrote:
Im sorry but there is no tank in the IG that comes close to being as good as any main line battle tank of the modern world.
And air power.....at best the IG air ships are = to a Jet from the Korean War. And that would be on a good day.

Seriously? "A jet from the Korean War"? They have LASER CANNONS! Where do you get the specs for Thunderbolts and Lightnings from anyway? Not to mention the fact that Titans, if we for some silly reason brought them into the equation, would laugh at our battle tanks. And TBH, the Leman Russ tank would too.

**Ulver**

Grakmar wrote:As for a pure infantry vs infantry. An M16 has an effective range of 550m, 618" in 40k terms. IG infantry would be dead long before they could get in range (for comparison, a lasgun has an equivalent RL range of 21m)

Lasers have a range far in excess of any projectile weapon; you must know about all the hoo-har over laser pointers being aimed at aircraft cockpits.

**Snogs**

LOL the fan boys are out today.
The Main line battle tank of the IG the Russ. Has a 150mm of "steal" armor or about 6 inch's.
and a side armor of about 4 inch's.

ANY and I mean ANY modern anti tank round would go right throw a Russ and exit the back of it.

The Leman Russ is at best a WW2 King Panzer. And that is a insult to the crews of those those panzers.
And as I said the only way we lose is from orbit. So ill give you your Armageddon BattleShip.
And ill give you the guardsmen in a knife fight.

Other then that....we win hands down.

And I don't care if they mount lasers by the dozens, they cant hit the broad side of a barn.
Bad targeting systems? No Targeting systems? All I know is that we don't roll these

when we fight air wars. Nuff Said.

**sourclams**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Polonius wrote:That's a really great point. IG will literally keep moving and let the casualties fall. Few modern militaries would do that.

That was the Soviet method at the start of the Great Patriotic War. They did very badly using those tactics.

BUT IG aren't necessarily going to needlessly die at their enemy just 'cause (although I don't deny it's been done in the past, but only with superior numbers against a qualitatively superior foe). This isn't 100 IG sprinting at 100 modern day Marines in prepared positions, it's an open field with 100 guys to a side, last man standing wins.

In equipment, IG probably have an edge-slight or significant is arguable.

In tactical doctrine, our modern militaries probably have an edge.

But in the theoretical scenario of 100 v 100 fighting across an open field, there's very little room for tactical doctrine to play a significant role. To my eye, it actually seems that the scenario heavily favors IG because it's a static, two-dimensional fight within fixed parameters--this is the kind of fight that IG is built for and excels at.

When both sides are forced to toe the firing line and simply grind the other guys down for the win, I think the superior tech and 'fearless' nature of the IG will carry the day. In a Napoleonic/WWI style fight, technology being equal, I think the Napoleonic/WWI-trained army is going to carry the day.

**FireWolf698**

Wow, people in this thread have no idea just how advanced the US Military really is. Flak Armor was the stuff worn by pilots back in WW2 so they wouldn't get shredded by shrapnel from ground fire, it hardly acts as any kind of reliable defense vs any modern military rifle round.

Unless the Leman Russ is a Vanquisher, Demolisher or Plasma variant it wouldn't stand a chance against a Abrams. I adore the LRBT but look at the two: The Leman Russ is some clunky WW2-era rolling box with very straight surfaces and I havn't heard of any built-in counter measure like even the Russian T90 which has reactive armor. As you can see on both the Abrams and the T90 they have sloped edges wherever possible and those tanks are low profile, unlike the LRBT whose turret sticks out like a sore thumb.

As for air superiority, flak cannons are not a very good defense against US Aircraft. Hell, even ground to air systems suffer horribly as their communications get knocked out before a missile can fire. The most a Hydra could reliable threaten is the A10 Warthog and I've read reports of one of the engines in those getting disabled and the pilot still is combat capable and was able to get back to base.

In the grand scheme of things the modern Militaries would get swarmed by the Imperium's ability to field countless bodies, but they would likely have to put resources into their conquest of Earth.

**Lizar7**

''Flak Armour'' is just what they call it. If it was real flak armor there would be no imperium left. It's crappy for uber advanced weapons of the 41st millenium, but that's 40000 years in the future. It's all relative.

Now, the ability of their various support doesn't matter, it's a hundred infantry men on each side, not a campaign for world domination. I think that the imperial gaurd's ability to work on greater scale is a huge advantage, not to mention the technological edge. My vote goes to the guard.

If it were a larger battle then the guardsmen would get tanks from 40000 years in the future made of made up materials.

**xlightscreen**

Just to be frank, any time my IG stop a genestealer from ripping him apart. I assume that when he gets a save its just him freaking out staggering back and the genestealer tripping on the a rock.

**IvanTih**

1 vs 1 the IG wins because flak armor block multi megajoule Lasguns(tell me when modern small arms can do that).Flak armor is very good(and made of 40k materials).In Storm of Iron a soldier gets a shot from bolt action rifle and he ends with a bruise.

**sourclams**

xlightscreen wrote:Just to be frank, any time my IG stop a genestealer from ripping him apart. I assume that when he gets a save its just him freaking out staggering back and the genestealer tripping on the a rock.

You can conceptualize it that way, but IG flak armor is still incredibly advanced stuff by today's standards. Its relative crappiness is more a reflection of how incredibly badass the weaponry in 40k is, from Genestealer talons to fully automatic .70 caliber rocket propelled warhead bullets, than it is a reflection of how bad their armor tech happens to be.

**Chapter Master Aeneas**

Flak armour is more resilient than Just think that you need nothing short of a rocket propelled grenade (boltgun) to punch through just think of flak armour is like the special fabric they put in armoured cars which stop bullets

**Kilkrazy**

Razgryz wrote:Lasguns can fire full auto, and have more rounds per magazine than an assault rifle. And our troops are not trained to fire full auto, they are specifically trained to NOT waste ammo that way. The rate of fire that our guns can deliver is immaterial, since they almost never use mroe than three round bursts.

There is no practical basis to compare ceranite armor against an Abrams Chobham armor, but offhand Id say the ceramite gives much greater thickness and protection on a pound for pound basis. So, while an Abrams may have a smaller profile, it would probably take 3-4 shots for an Abrams to kill a LRBT.

Introducing airpower, sorry, we lose. Our air to air missiles are designed to shoot down unarmored planes, and the armor piercing air to ground missiles cant be used against aircraft. Add in lascannons and while we may not get shot down, we would be forced away from the battlefield.

In the end, however, I say that it would be the mindset of the IG that would beat us. The ability to wage total, unrestricted war would simply crack our units morale. A very close comparison would be to put the IG next to WWII marine corps. In the pacific, we had to learn unrestricted war to beat the Japanese, including using nuclear weapons and firebombing civilian targets. And we were preparing to lose, not commit to fight but LOSE, 150,000 troops in an invasion of the Japanese main island if the nukes didnt work.

feths sake, this is all nonsense!

The thread is about a fight about 100 vs 100!!!

I have run the numbers. The IG get slaughtered.

**sourclams**

Kilkrazy wrote:
feths sake, this is all nonsense!

The thread is about a fight about 100 vs 100!!!

I have run the numbers. The IG get slaughtered.

I think we'd all like to see the numbers. IG getting 'slaughtered' with both a technological and doctrinal advantage in a setting that nullifies modern armed forces' 'tactical' advantage seems pretty far fetched.

**Lizar7**

Agreed.

**IvanTih**

It all depends on which regiments we use.

**Kilkrazy**

Okay

Round 1. Range = 35.9 inches
US light infantry open fire with 24 machine guns (counts as heavy stubber but profile of S3 --
12 casualties inflicted.
IG advance 9.5 inches.

Round 2. Range = 26.4 inches
US light infanry inflict another 12 casualties
IG advance 9.5 inches

Round 3. Range = 16.9 inches
US infantry adds 18 grenade launchers and 58 auto guns to their machine-gun fire.
27 casualties inflicted.
IG advance 9.5 inches.

Round 4. Range = 7.4 inches
US infantry can now double tap with 58 auto guns.
36 casualties inflicted.
IG return fire with as many lasguns and pistols as they have left and inflict come casualties. I didn't bother to calculate this because they are now massively outnumbered.
Remaining IG strength =13

Round 5.
IG charge.
US retreat.
Range = 1.4 inches
US wipe out the 13 remaining IG with close range rifle fire.
Alternatively they counter-charged and wipe them out in H2H having offensive and defensive grenades, and outnnumbering the IG about 95 to 13.

**IvanTih**

Razgryz wrote:*snip*

In Honor Guard Leman Russes stomped tanks which were basically strong as out modern day tanks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:*snip*

If we used fluff the IG would have stomped modern day army because of the superior equipment(tactics depend on regiment,but the novel Straight Silver totally refutes the possibility that IG fights like a WW1 army).

**FireWolf698**

I'm going to continue to play devil's advocate just because I enjoy this discussion >_>

The modern day HEAT (High Explosive Anti-tank) warhead can penetrate up to and greater than 250% diameter of the warhead. And with such easily identifiable crew compartments on an LRBT I highly doubt it would take 3-4 shots for any US or Russian made tank to disable or outright destroy an LRBT.

**IvanTih**

FireWolf698 wrote:I'm going to continue to play devil's advocate just because I enjoy this discussion >_>

The modern day HEAT (High Explosive Anti-tank) warhead can penetrate up to and greater than 250% diameter of the warhead. And with such easily identifiable crew compartments on an LRBT I highly doubt it would take 3-4 shots for any US or Russian made tank to disable or outright destroy an LRBT.

Considering that Leman Russ in Storm of Iron resist multi-melta(a weapon calced at hundred of gigajoules) I rather doubt that HEAT can do it.

**sourclams**

Kilkrazy wrote:Okay
Round 1-5: IG are massively slowed
Round 1-5: US 'military' issues a one-sided beatdown

Ah, okay, given the scope of your analysis the results given make perfect sense.

**Emperors Faithful**

I think Killkrazy has made the mistake of assuming that all IG regiments charge across open fields for the heck of it. They do this on occassion, but ussually these charges number in the hundreds of thousands, rather than just one hundred. These 100 men could be grenadiers, have cameloine cloaks ect. We're not necesarily looking at your basic Hive Regiment where the cannon fodder comes out.

In the battle for Maccrage the human forces their opened fire with their las weaponry when the Tyranids were at 500m. I think the game mechanic of 24" can be safely disgarded as just that.

**Laodamia**

Shas'O Dorian wrote:There is also something called Game Balance. A valk can't more incredibly fast in game because the ability to outflank & hit any inch of the board while still firing would be ridiculous. Also the valk plays a similar role to a helicopter. Flying in, delivering troops & providing close air support. Comparing it to a fighter jet shows a gross misunderstanding of battlefield roles.

Many people have the "Go america / Insert country, we win because we are the awesome." We aren't. A 40k AT missile (Krak) has only a 1/6 chance of GLANCING the frontal armor of a leman russ. Their tanks are better than ours. We also care about civilian casualities, they don't. We have LIMITED resources. If they are hitting us from space you can damn well be sure they have a nigh unlimited supply line.
People mention Air Superiority, lol. I thought this was Army Vs Army, if you are bringing in the Airforce, they have the navy their planes are better than ours. They control space, they win. any way you look at it, as with the tyranid threat, we. are. boned.

Mouahahaaa! Fool! I'm gonna jump on this occasion to turn your reasonning against you!

You mentionned game balance, which is perfectly relevant. I think when we compare our tech and tactics to the IG, we should stick to fluff info and IA books specifications about vehicles (speed, armour thickness, etc) and forget about game rules. Which means that your point on the chance a frak missile has to penetrate a LRBT armour is irelevant. The fact that you can only penetrate a LRBT frontal armour with a six with your dice does not mean it is going to work the same way in real life (if I can mention real life while talking about an encounter between plastic minis and GIs).

Still, piercing through the frontal armour of a leman russ is going to be hard with our modern weapons. But there are other ways to destroy a tank than to simply blow it to tiny pieces. Hit the tracks, and the tank will not do much for the rest of the day. Hit the rear section of the LRBT with any explosive device, and the engine is screwed up (radiator destroyed, exaust system broken, etc...). You can also try to hit the tank with incendiary shells, and brew up the crew of the LRBT. I think a LRBT beats any of our modern tanks, but it not invincible. But still, this thread implies infantry against infantry, so we should forget about the heavy gear.

And I still think our air support beats the imperial navy wings. Really hard.

**I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly**

Kilkrazy wrote:Okay

Round 1. Range = 35.9 inches
US light infantry open fire with 24 machine guns (counts as heavy stubber but profile of S3 --
12 casualties inflicted.
IG advance 9.5 inches.

Round 2. Range = 26.4 inches
US light infanry inflict another 12 casualties
IG advance 9.5 inches

Round 3. Range = 16.9 inches
US infantry adds 18 grenade launchers and 58 auto guns to their machine-gun fire.
27 casualties inflicted.
IG advance 9.5 inches.

Round 4. Range = 7.4 inches
US infantry can now double tap with 58 auto guns.
36 casualties inflicted.
IG return fire with as many lasguns and pistols as they have left and inflict come casualties. I didn't bother to calculate this because they are now massively outnumbered.
Remaining IG strength =13

Round 5.
IG charge.
US retreat.
Range = 1.4 inches
US wipe out the 13 remaining IG with close range rifle fire.
Alternatively they counter-charged and wipe them out in H2H having offensive and defensive grenades, and outnnumbering the IG about 95 to 13.

You've . . . 'run the numbers'? What on earth is this? You took a made up game system built around single-digit values and rolls of a d6, assigned similar numbers to a real-life military, and calculated these completely arbitrary probabilities? What on earth could this possibly 'prove'?

I'm sorry to be rude. But this whole discussion is completely pointless, as the IG is a made up army. And the way of 'determining results' is just the strangest hting I've ever seen.

**IvanTih**

It's such a pity that one side has vastly superior technology and flak armour that can shrug off the rounds of M4 and M16s without issue. The Grenade launchers might conceivably be a problem... right up to the moment a Heavy Bolter or Autocannon is set up.

**Elector**

Guys,

For the comparisons to the Soviet thousands of casualties, for the Ig, that's nothing, they have billions of soldiers, far more than the entire population on Earth.

For air support, modern armies may have fast planes, but thge IG have orbital bombardments. They can shoot us from space!

The sci-fi weapons of the IG would also be a huge advantage, meltaguns, meltabombs, lascannons, plasma of any type, being more afraid of what's behind them than what's in from of them, and the sheer weight of numbers means they could take out earth with ease (Exterminatus anybody? We can't defend from orbital strikes at our technological level).

It doesn't matter if you can wipe out a few tanks, they have 20,000 more just over that hill, behind the several hundred thousand (or more) troops. Our small, strike force tactics wouldn't work against those numbers. In a war of attrition, they'd win, just because they can afford to last a loooot longer than we can.

**Chapter Master Aeneas**

Kilkrazy wrote:Okay

Round 1. Range = 35.9 inches
US light infantry open fire with 24 machine guns (counts as heavy stubber but profile of S3 --
12 casualties inflicted.
IG advance 9.5 inches.

Round 2. Range = 26.4 inches
US light infanry inflict another 12 casualties
IG advance 9.5 inches

Round 3. Range = 16.9 inches
US infantry adds 18 grenade launchers and 58 auto guns to their machine-gun fire.
27 casualties inflicted.
IG advance 9.5 inches.

Ok well done on thinking of running numbers but the tactics are seriously flawed for example how come the imperial guard are charging, why are they not using their superior fire power to fire back for e.g. Heavy bolters and autocannons

Also the IG regiment will shall use is standard Cadian's

Round 4. Range = 7.4 inches
US infantry can now double tap with 58 auto guns.
36 casualties inflicted.
IG return fire with as many lasguns and pistols as they have left and inflict come casualties. I didn't bother to calculate this because they are now massively outnumbered.
Remaining IG strength =13

Round 5.
IG charge.
US retreat.
Range = 1.4 inches
US wipe out the 13 remaining IG with close range rifle fire.
Alternatively they counter-charged and wipe them out in H2H having offensive and defensive grenades, and outnnumbering the IG about 95 to 13.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry made a mistake on my IPhone what was mention to be put after the quote was

Ok well done on thinking of running numbers but the tactics are seriously flawed for example how come the imperial guard are charging, why are they not using their superior fire power to fire back for e.g. Heavy bolters and autocannons
I think we should sit out of range of your M60's and shoot you with the 10 auto cannon teams we have ha ha run those numbers 1-0 IG

Also the IG regiment will shall use is standard Cadian's

**Shas'O Dorian**

Laodamia wrote:
And I still think our air support loses to the imperial navy wings. Really hard.

^^Fixed^^

I didn't say terra-bound imperial navy. . .

**L_Dawg**

The way I see it, a 100 vs. 100 fight would never actually be possible since the Imperium would send more than just 100, unless they do some rounding errors in tax returns and send just one company (Fifteen Hours).

IG also have their long range artillery, Manticores, Deathstrikes, Hellstrikes, Melta weapons, Hellhounds (and variants which are fast), Vanquishers, Executioners and Punishers (if your regular run of the mill Battle Tank isn't enough).

Then you come across the super-heavies like the Baneblade and Titans. TITANS. We'd need something short of an ICBM to fully destroy one of those things.

Although, man to man, the modern US soldier is better equipped and trained but the Imperium has more men.

Basically we really are screwed if the Imperium lifts a finger of its actual might. Sending just 100 Guardsmen would probably just be another Fifteen Hours event. Something that the Imperial Guard can just forget about.

**Kilkrazy**

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think Killkrazy has made the mistake of assuming that all IG regiments charge across open fields for the heck of it. They do this on occassion, but ussually these charges number in the hundreds of thousands, rather than just one hundred. These 100 men could be grenadiers, have cameloine cloaks ect. We're not necesarily looking at your basic Hive Regiment where the cannon fodder comes out.

In the battle for Maccrage the human forces their opened fire with their las weaponry when the Tyranids were at 500m. I think the game mechanic of 24" can be safely disgarded as just that.

I made a few assumptions:

0. The stats to be used are from real life or the game, not from fiction.
1. The units involved are "standard", not specialists, so no sniper rifles, cameoline cloaks, etc. (Note that the US still have lots of night-fighting equipment because it is standard.)
2. The fight is 100 vs 100, as specified in the OP.
3. Vehicles and off-board artillery are not in use.
4. The superior qualities of the IG are:
High morale (no flinching from casualties)
Superior armour (I counted the US armour as Sv6)
Better melee weapons (powerfists, swords and so on)
5. The fighting starts as soon as one side is inside the maximum range of their weapons.
6. It runs basically according to game rules, though I assumed movement would be simultaneous rather than UGOIGO.

The long range firefight will be decided by support weapons such as machine-guns and grenade launchers. Since the US infantry have a high proportion of these, it makes sense for the IG to close the range as quickly as possible, to maximise their advantages.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that charging at massed enemy automatic fire is pretty much suicide. Even if the IG stop to firefight when they in range with their lasguns, they have already been severely whittled down, despite their better armour, and will get badly outshot by weight of numbers, though they will cause more casualties to the US side.

If you want to make some assumptions that mean the IG automatically win, go ahead. But what's the point, really? We may as well just make a mega thread saying IoM vs anyone == Win!, sticky it, and lock any new threads that arise on the topic.

**Emperors Faithful**

Kilkrazy wrote:
0. The stats to be used are from real life or the game, not from fiction.

The game is fictional. Game mechanics translated to IRL don't, and shouldn't, have any more validity than fictional information on them based on IRL. I largely agree with you other assumptions though.

If you want to make some assumptions that mean the IG automatically win, go ahead. But what's the point, really? We may as well just make a mega thread saying IoM vs anyone == Win!, sticky it, and lock any new threads that arise on the topic.

I didn't do that, please don't pretend I'm arguing with you becuase I have a raging boner for the Emperor (that's beside the point

). I just pointed out that the fluff supports your average lasgun roughly having the equivalent range of an assualt rifle.