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.

It means the Imperium has the option of commiting to trench warfare in certain theatres if the overall commander deems it necessary. In Dead Men Walking they do not build trenches.
The Imperium also has dedicated light infantry, covert operations companies, heavy infantry, armour regiments, drop regiments, jungle fighters, mechanised regiments, super heavy armour regiments.

So many misconceptions and so much misunderstood history displayed here could lead one to a



40k, its grim-dark and a lot of it writings seem to me have been flavored with the UK's cultural and artistic trauma from the industrial revolution and the war to end all wars WW1.

That being said though, combined arms tactics work the best and have been proven over and over again throughout history.

Weather it was ancient times or now or even into the far flung future the basics of Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery used in concert rule the battlefield.

I'm reading through Codex: Cityfight (the precursor to Cities of Death) and it's VERY IG focused with the fluff. Essentially, IG units are fighting the exact same way as we do in urban environments. IG are meant to be very well trained and disciplined soldiers, but some generals are fairly incompetent and just order them to their deaths. It fits into 40k's whole "life is cheap" mantra. IG use armor just as we do now, they use air support just as we do now, and they use orbital support, much in the same way we'd use ICBMs or bombers.

The whole "charge the enemy til they run out of bullets!" stuff is very cool thematically, as it's cooler to picture hundreds of men going over the top and charging as opposed to sitting in a trench popping up for a shot every five minutes.

There certainly is precedent in the fluff for the IG to act like a modern army. However, it's more dramatic and cool to picture the WW1 style massed charges and bayonet assaults and such.

Brother SRM wrote:There certainly is precedent in the fluff for the IG to act like a modern army. However, it's more dramatic and cool to picture the WW1 style massed charges and bayonet assaults and such.

^This.^

Allot of modern tactics don't really apply because, for the most part, the enemies that the IG are facing are nothing like modern armies.

Trenches don't make much sense now, but they make a hell of a lot more sense given some the enemies that the Guard face.

Orkz, Nids, and and Ravening Cultist of various flavors all use the tactic of swarming forward at maximums speed and relying on enough of their numbers making it to the enemy line to carry the day.

In those types of situations trenches are ideal. Trench fighting only sucks when you've got to take the other guys trenches.

This is very true. Just looking at the units avaible to the IG in the codex show that they are perfectly capable of more then trench warfare.

And Canadian 5th your comments are so offensive to service members its unbelievable. To sit there in your comfy chair and belittle the sacrafices that men and women in the armed forces have made is unbelievable. Obviously you have never been in the military otherwise you would know that it takes all parts not just one to win a war.

Commisar Wolfie wrote:
And Canadian 5th your comments are so offensive to service members its unbelievable. To sit there in your comfy chair and belittle the sacrafices that men and women in the armed forces have made is unbelievable. Obviously you have never been in the military otherwise you would know that it takes all parts not just one to win a war.

A very little people know that brother... They think to know everything yet know nothing about military...

indeed. Somethings people just can't understand without having been a part of the military but even without knowing the brotherhood of being in is no excuse to belittle so many people's sacrifice.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.

Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.

Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.

Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.

And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.

No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.

And yes, in that novel, the first one. Where everyone talks about how bad of a commander the man in charge is (implying that there are many better). One example does not a defining tactic make.

And having trench warfare specialist forces like Krieg means what now?

You know the Navy got those planes to Midway, right? And many of the planes at the battle were flown by Marine pilots from the island's airfields. But yes, air power was key - once the Navy and Marines had gotten them close enough.

I disagree about Iraq. One of the statements Hussein made was "Aircraft carriers don't have wheels; we'll fight you in Baghdad." He was resolved not to give in without a ground fight.

Air power was good in the Falklands, I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just saying that in 40k, not having air superiority isn't the end of the world, and the same is true in real life. I think that the entire military might of Britain could have eventually won (in a longer war) simply due to attrition. Fortunately, however, they did have planes to fight the Argentinian planes.

And what that means is that out of a galaxy of at least hundreds of thousands of regiments, one of them specializes in siege warfare/trenches. If, out of a hundred thousand troops, I have one that is good at infiltrating, does that mean all of them only infiltrate?

Is it really necessary to turn a disagreement about the nature of modern warfare into an "X doesn't support the troops" smear?

I disagree with the way this thread has gone...

Commisar Wolfie wrote:This is very true. Just looking at the units avaible to the IG in the codex show that they are perfectly capable of more then trench warfare.

And Canadian 5th your comments are so offensive to service members its unbelievable. To sit there in your comfy chair and belittle the sacrafices that men and women in the armed forces have made is unbelievable. Obviously you have never been in the military otherwise you would know that it takes all parts not just one to win a war.

My service isn't appreciated screeching gets you no where. I said the bomb would have worked regardless and it would have, the B-36 Peacemakers had the range to move from the mainland of the US to Japan with the bomb and it was completed shortly after the end of the war. It could have flown in active service earlier than even '46 when it did fly had it been needed to. The point about the navy in the Pacific is bunk.

You know the Navy got those planes to Midway, right? And many of the planes at the battle were flown by Marine pilots from the island's airfields. But yes, air power was key - once the Navy and Marines had gotten them close enough.

So, the B-36 could have done the job of dropping the bombs without the navy and no matter what Japan couldn't have threatened the US on home soil even without the navy fighting.

I disagree about Iraq. One of the statements Hussein made was "Aircraft carriers don't have wheels; we'll fight you in Baghdad." He was resolved not to give in without a ground fight.

Actually the best thing for the US would have been had he stayed in his palace and been nailed by a bunker buster instead of running free and hiding for so long.

Air power was good in the Falklands, I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just saying that in 40k, not having air superiority isn't the end of the world, and the same is true in real life. I think that the entire military might of Britain could have eventually won (in a longer war) simply due to attrition. Fortunately, however, they did have planes to fight the Argentinian planes.

In 40k losing the air means you lose actually. If you lose orbit then the enemy can kill you even if they lose on the ground. Just like if you lose in the air today the enemy can bomb you with impunity at heights where AA guns and missiles can't kill you.

And what that means is that out of a galaxy of at least hundreds of thousands of regiments, one of them specializes in siege warfare/trenches. If, out of a hundred thousand troops, I have one that is good at infiltrating, does that mean all of them only infiltrate?

It's a bit different, they obviously see trenches as being something worth keeping specialist units around for it. Real nations lose knowledge when it isn't important.

Trench warfare is still very important when fighting foes like Tyranids or Orkz, or rambling hordes of cultists. They're easy to build, offer a decent amount of protection, and can be covered up afterwards.

purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.

I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.

Kilkrazy wrote:

purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.

I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.

Good one.

We have to distinguish between tactics and strategy in what we are discussing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The large size, low quality and heavy equipment allocation of IG armies would lend itself to positional warfare and a strategy of attrition.

Wikipedia defines tactics as :

Wikipedia wrote:Military tactics, the art of organizing an army, are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle

and Strategy as :

Strategy, a word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.

It also distinguishes the two as :

In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy.

Kilkrazy wrote:

purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.

I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.

Conscription can be found only on large worlds that are under constant attacks ( Cadian Whiteshields, Armageddon, Valhalla... ).
The rest are fully trained, unless they are needed on front in like 5 days...

Brother Coa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.

I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.

Conscription can be found only on large worlds that are under constant attacks ( Cadian Whiteshields, Armageddon, Valhalla... ).
The rest are fully trained, unless they are needed on front in like 5 days...

Valhalla?
Why would they need conscription?
The were attacked by Orks once and they dealt with it like bosses.

There is so much fail about history in this thread I honestly have no idea where to even begin.

Strategy =/= tactics. People in this thread seem to be using these words interchangeably.

I barely know what is even being discussed anymore to be honest...err...how about trying to apply modern military thinking to the grim dark universe of 40k will likely be an uphill battle.

On a constructive note, look at Macharius and how he conducted warfare. The IG is quite capable of adapting to any situation, and just like in the real world, there will be incompetent generals and skilled ones.

No, people in this thread aren't. The words maybe been used twice accidentally, and to be perfectly honest, without actively searching, I doubt most people would know there was a difference. Hell, I didn't, I still haven't used the word strategy. Did you see my post? I quoted the definitions and then the difference at Killkrazy's behest, so you aren't the first person to notice that.

Canadian 5th at no point did i "whine" that my service was not appreciated. Heck i never claimed to have been a part of those military actions. And for a plane even a bomber to try and fly that far without as much airspace being cleared before hand would be an incredibly stupid idea. And the navy in that particular theater of war was important. how else were the iilands going to be cleared thus takeing anti-aircraft placements that would have been able to fire at your little bomber or taking out all the airfields that would have unleashed plenty of fighters that would have blown your bomber out of the sky. Why not in the future you keep your little insulting comments to yourself or if you think that the military is worthless then why not give it a try and find out for yourself what it is like.

purplefood wrote:
Valhalla?
Why would they need conscription?
The were attacked by Orks once and they dealt with it like bosses.

I was under impression that they were under constant raides from Orks...
And they do have conscripts due to diversity of their Regiments all across the galaxy. Not to mention replacements for Chenkov men...

Let's face it the IG a perfectly capable of carrying on many different types war's not just trench warfare. And having specialists of all kinds means they can meet any challange with the right kinds of troops. This may not always happen since the upper reaches of command are not always the best and paperwork always has the tendency to get mixed up. But the reason the IG prefer the war of attrition approach is because 1)it's easy to just keep throwing men at the problem until it goes away 2)they have no shortage of men so why not.

As others have said, real world strategy and tactics don't work in 40k. In the real world, the army is likely to be fighting an army with similar thinking to strategy and tactics, or one that is inferior in skill or equipment. Modern military don't have to deal with fighting off endless swarms of aliens or fanatics charging them, or super human warriors.

Also, on the topic of air power defeating Japan, it was not the air power, but the atomic bombs (dropped from bombers, but the strategic bombing had no effect on Japan's morale). The U.S. had been firebombing Japan with incendiary bombs since February 1945 with no real affect to Japan's resolve; even though most their industry was in ruins. It was only after the dropping of 2 atomic bombs ( they did not even respond to the first) and the threat of further nuclear bombing that forced Japan to surrender. They had been preparing for a last defense before the atomic bombs, even with the U.S. bombing every other day near the end. This shows that the most fanatical will not give up until the prospect of total annihilation.

I guess I am trying to say that it was the prospect of total annihilation by atomic bomb and not conventional bombing and the destruction it caused that forced Japan to surrender, and that up until the dropping of atomic bombs, the bombing had done nothing to hurt Japans resolve to keep fighting.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Canadian 5th at no point did i "whine" that my service was not appreciated. Heck i never claimed to have been a part of those military actions. And for a plane even a bomber to try and fly that far without as much airspace being cleared before hand would be an incredibly stupid idea. And the navy in that particular theater of war was important. how else were the iilands going to be cleared thus takeing anti-aircraft placements that would have been able to fire at your little bomber or taking out all the airfields that would have unleashed plenty of fighters that would have blown your bomber out of the sky. Why not in the future you keep your little insulting comments to yourself or if you think that the military is worthless then why not give it a try and find out for yourself what it is like.

This is true. Bomber losses were very heavy early on for the U.S. when they were launching the attacks from China, which was too far away to send fighter escorts. The bombers were also forced to drop their bombs from about 30,000 ft as it was too dangerous to fly below the clouds without escort. This also made the initial bombings very inaccurate and the bombings did not do major damage until they switched to firebombing and captured islands closer to Japan so they could send escorts.

By the time the atom bombs were dropped, Japan had been defeated militarily.

This was achieved with several strategies, for example, unrestricted submarine warfare against their merchant navy.

The island hopping campaign, which cut off detachments to let them wither on the vine, is an example of the strategy of the indirect approach.

Kilkrazy wrote:By the time the atom bombs were dropped, Japan had been defeated militarily.

This was achieved with several strategies, for example, unrestricted submarine warfare against their merchant navy.

The island hopping campaign, which cut off detachments to let them wither on the vine, is an example of the strategy of the indirect approach.

Yes, they may have lost the vast majority of their military and industrial power, but they would have still fought. They had almost 1,000,000 troops stationed on their home island, and were training civilians to make suicide attacks against landing troops. They also still had a large fleet of aircraft and they were training their pilots to make kamikaze attacks. It was estimated that casualties of taking the island of Japan could have been near 250,000 men. The atom bomb was an alternative to this costly invasion and was taken instead of the invasion.
I was saying that though the bombing had defeated them militarily, it had not actually defeated their spirits so they would have fought anyway; so the conventional bombing did not defeat them, the atomic bombs did.

Brother Coa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

purplefood wrote:Guard are well trained and usually well disciplined troops. They have shown their ability to perform some complex strategies and use troops and equipment to their maximum potential even against far superior troops.

I thought they were mainly untrained conscripts.

Conscription can be found only on large worlds that are under constant attacks ( Cadian Whiteshields, Armageddon, Valhalla... ).
The rest are fully trained, unless they are needed on front in like 5 days...

Except Cadian Whiteshields aren't Conscripts in any sense of the word. They're younger Cadians, usually aged 13 to 16, who haven't yet "taken the eagle" and become full Guardsmen. By that same vein, without a doubt, they're almost all trained to the same standard as many of what people consider to be the 'average' Guard regiments. Cadians do not feth around when it comes to preparedness.

Armageddon's "conscripts" are the Hive Militias, which are made up of a great number of partisans who'd fought the Orks on their own terms and gangers who took arms up in defense of the hive.

I'm sorry I contributed to thread derailment:

On the topic of the Imperial Guard:

They do have siege regiments. Because sometimes, sieges need to get done when the entire galaxy is involved; I'm sure somewhere there are some feral orks in a stolen fortress which a siege regiment would be PERFECT for blasting to smithereens, whereas deploying the Elysians (as an example) might mean they get mobbed by orks in difficult, unknown, fortified terrain.

I would also note that although modern nations do "forget" knowledge they no longer require, they have not forgotten trench warfare. This may be indicative of something.

I would think that it would be important NOT to forget anything. Ignore the past and you are doomed to repeat it.