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.

Amaya wrote:How's that IG sausage taste?

Superior to any modern day sausage.

iproxtaco wrote:

Amaya wrote:How's that IG sausage taste?

Superior to any modern day sausage.

You, sir or madam, are my hero of the day.

Reading everything that has been said, I have come to this conclusion.
IG= almost unlimited supply of troops. Tanks that are probably bigger than the biggest tank that was ever built the Panzer VIII Maus. Poor armor but could still deflect bullets from our M16. Out in air the F-22 Raptors will probably take down the Lightings and the Thunderbolts.

USA= limited supply of troops. Tanks made for quickness not firepower. Medium armor but Lasguns could probably pierce it. As for air the same as above.

In terms of speed, a Lighting is a lot faster than an F-22, as is the Thunderbolt. Both have better armour and weaponry, but due to their high speeds, they may not be as manoeuvrable, the Thunderbolt at least. Both can return to orbit, and their range is far superior, as is the pilots experience. We would have no air superiority.

EDIT : Looking at images of the Lightning and Thunderbolt and comparing them to the F-22, I'd say that they are smaller, so could well be more manoeuvrable.

False, air superiority for Earth is nowhere near garunteed. I will quote what I said earlier in this thread.

ChrisWWII wrote:SAMs and AAMs do not kill by hitting the aircraft. They kill by detonating close by and filling the air with shrapnel and other crap that shreds the plane. THis works because most modern aircraft are either un or very lightly armored. Only aircraft like the A-10 have reasonably thick armor. Imperial aircraft tend to be relatively well armored, with things like the Thunderhawk armored as heavily as ground APCs. This additional protection can not be discounted.

Like guided anti-aircraft bullets. The accuracy that would be required to directly hit a highspeed aircraft would be inefficient and unreliable.

Well, it really depends on the troops.

If it was 100 of Gaunt's Ghosts? I think the Modern US Military is F'ed in the A.

Melissia wrote:I think the nova cannon (the navy one, not the leman russ one) is a railgun which launches a charge the size of a city.

It is NOT a railgun. They described how it worked in Hellforged. They said it was fission that powered it a believe, they dexcribed it as being like the birth of a star, but smaller or something. I'll go look for Hellforged.

NVM, lent it to a friend. Does anyone with hellforged want to quote the description of the nova cannon ?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

gpfunk wrote:Well, it really depends on the troops.

If it was 100 of Gaunt's Ghosts? I think the Modern US Military is F'ed in the A.

The Ghosts are good at stealth. That's about it though. And it's an open battlefield. Plus we have people like this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy#Battles

Uhm, it is a railgun.

That info comes from the Battlefleet Gothic rulebook.

It uses electromagnets to accelerate a city-sized explosive device to near-light-speed, which is timed to explode at a certain range to prevent damage to the launching craft.

Melissia wrote:Uhm, it is a railgun.

That info comes from the Battlefleet Gothic rulebook.

It uses electromagnets to accelerate a city-sized explosive device to near-light-speed, which is timed to explode at a certain range to prevent damage to the launching craft.

...So do gauss weapons, but they're not railguns either. Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun

And also, as for the railguns only being on warships, they are working on using them for small arms now, it is a few years off, but our military technology may become very, very tau-ish in the forseeable future (minus pulse weapons and battlesuits)

I know what a coilgun is, seeing as I've helped design one as part of a physics experiment. However, the Nova Cannon is described as a device similar to a railgun, but massive in size.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note, gauss weapons in 40k refer to an entirely different set of weapons.

im2randomghgh wrote:

...So do gauss weapons, but they're not railguns either. Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun

And also, as for the railguns only being on warships, they are working on using them for small arms now, it is a few years off, but our military technology may become very, very tau-ish in the forseeable future (minus pulse weapons and battlesuits)

BUt we're not using 'near future' technology, we're using modern technology. Even if we do invent a rail gun assault rifles, how long will it take to make everyone have it? A long time.

And what's with your obesession with railguns? Is railgun the new 'nuke' that everything you shoot it at is going to die? What does it matter if a gun is a railgun or a coilgun if it accelerates the same projectile to higher speeds? Even if the nova cannon isn't a 'railgun' doesn't change the fact that it's shooting a gigantic shell that makes any weapon modern day earth has ever constructed or imagined look like a childrens firecracker.

ChrisWWII wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

...So do gauss weapons, but they're not railguns either. Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun

And also, as for the railguns only being on warships, they are working on using them for small arms now, it is a few years off, but our military technology may become very, very tau-ish in the forseeable future (minus pulse weapons and battlesuits)

BUt we're not using 'near future' technology, we're using modern technology. Even if we do invent a rail gun assault rifles, how long will it take to make everyone have it? A long time.

And what's with your obesession with railguns? Is railgun the new 'nuke' that everything you shoot it at is going to die? What does it matter if a gun is a railgun or a coilgun if it accelerates the same projectile to higher speeds? Even if the nova cannon isn't a 'railgun' doesn't change the fact that it's shooting a gigantic shell that makes any weapon modern day earth has ever constructed or imagined look like a childrens firecracker.

The difference is that railguns use hypervelocity slugs (mach 8+) and rely on kinetic energy to inflict damage, whereas the nova cannon relies on a massive warhead. It is like comparing a katana to a thunder hammer. They both kill, one relies on a small, compact, deadly package. The other one just uses size.

Think about this realistically, 40,000 years in the future. Technology will only get better. Lasguns are going to be better then an M-16 or any other modern assault rifle. Also the armor is going to be stronger or lighter. Either way IG would win.

Uhm.

No.

The Nova Cannon's shot is delivered at near light speed. Mach 8 is a mere 2720 metres per second. The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. That's right, the Nova Cannon fires a payload-- which is has FAR greater mass-- at a speed FASTER than the speed your beloved Tau railgun typically delivers its payload at.

The Nova Cannon's shot does not need to explode to deal damage to its target. The explosion is just a bonus.

Melissia wrote:Uhm.

No.

The Nova Cannon's shot is delivered at near light speed. Mach 8 is a mere 2720 metres per second. The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. That's right, the Nova Cannon fires a payload-- which is has FAR greater mass-- at a speed FASTER than the speed your beloved Tau railgun typically delivers its payload at.

The Nova Cannon's shot does not need to explode to deal damage to its target. The explosion is just a bonus.

'

A nova cannon, in fluff, requires all of a ships power to be diverted to firing. Killing a space hulk in two hits is just a side effect.

With that much power diverted to a railgun, it would fire VERY close to the speed of light, and would fire thousands and thousands of rounds per minute.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:Uhm.

No.

The Nova Cannon's shot is delivered at near light speed. Mach 8 is a mere 2720 metres per second. The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. That's right, the Nova Cannon fires a payload-- which is has FAR greater mass-- at a speed FASTER than the speed your beloved Tau railgun typically delivers its payload at.

The Nova Cannon's shot does not need to explode to deal damage to its target. The explosion is just a bonus.

'

A nova cannon, in fluff, requires all of a ships power to be diverted to firing. Killing a space hulk in two hits is just a side effect.

With that much power diverted to a railgun, it would fire VERY close to the speed of light, and would fire thousands and thousands of rounds per minute.

So? Tau still can't do it yet.

Imperial railgun technology is superior to Tau railgun technology ^.^

Melissia wrote:
Imperial railgun technology is superior to Tau railgun technology ^.^

We always had the better tech, only we have forgoten how to use it...

Melissia wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:Uhm.

No.

The Nova Cannon's shot is delivered at near light speed. Mach 8 is a mere 2720 metres per second. The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. That's right, the Nova Cannon fires a payload-- which is has FAR greater mass-- at a speed FASTER than the speed your beloved Tau railgun typically delivers its payload at.

The Nova Cannon's shot does not need to explode to deal damage to its target. The explosion is just a bonus.

'

A nova cannon, in fluff, requires all of a ships power to be diverted to firing. Killing a space hulk in two hits is just a side effect.

With that much power diverted to a railgun, it would fire VERY close to the speed of light, and would fire thousands and thousands of rounds per minute.

So? Tau still can't do it yet.

Imperial railgun technology is superior to Tau railgun technology ^.^

Nova. Cannon. Is. Not. A. Railgun.

Using electromagnetic energy does NOT automatically make something a railgun. By your logic EMPs, Gauss weapons, and plasma weapons are all railguns. They're not.

im2randomghgh wrote:Nova. Cannon. Is. Not. A. Railgun.

Yes it is ^.^

The fluff specifically mentions railguns as a comparison in its description. It does not do so for plasmaguns.


Oh, and Gauss weapons in 40k are not the same as gauss weapons IRL.

Melissia wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Nova. Cannon. Is. Not. A. Railgun.

Yes it is ^.^

The fluff specifically mentions railguns as a comparison in its description. It does not do so for plasmaguns.


Oh, and Gauss weapons in 40k are not the same as gauss weapons IRL.

Exactly. Railguns as a comparison

I know Gauss weapons are mislabeled in wh40k. I was making a real comparison. Otherwise I would have said "necron railgun"

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Nova. Cannon. Is. Not. A. Railgun.

Yes it is ^.^

The fluff specifically mentions railguns as a comparison in its description. It does not do so for plasmaguns.


Oh, and Gauss weapons in 40k are not the same as gauss weapons IRL.

Exactly. Railguns as a comparison

I know Gauss weapons are mislabeled in wh40k. I was making a real comparison. Otherwise I would have said "necron railgun"

It's a railgun the same way that the GAU-88 is a machine gun. It is, but isn't.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Nova. Cannon. Is. Not. A. Railgun.

Yes it is ^.^

The fluff specifically mentions railguns as a comparison in its description. It does not do so for plasmaguns.


Oh, and Gauss weapons in 40k are not the same as gauss weapons IRL.

Exactly. Railguns as a comparison

I know Gauss weapons are mislabeled in wh40k. I was making a real comparison. Otherwise I would have said "necron railgun"

It isn't.

fixed.

Does it matter what you label the weapon? It still has the same destructive capability, a capability that we can't match with anything.

iproxtaco wrote:Does it matter what you label the weapon? It still has the same destructive capability, a capability that we can't match with anything.

Except Chuck Norris...or a rapid wolverine...

[delete]

I'm sure they mentioned something about the Nova Cannon in Cadian Blood.

Been there done that, point wise the 21st century army is cheaper and gets more armor and hvy weapons. Buy the IG gain one thing that means the differance (pysker's and special chars) this offers the best chance of a win. But the role of a 21st century army focuses on eliminating HQ and hvy armor to give its land forces the advantage.

Win goes to 21st century.....in a point battle I played a 2,000 pt game at 2001 Adepticon vs several IG armies and won every time with a 21st century army.

It does use a massive magnetic field to launch a very large projectile that will collapse on itself and grow in density so intense as to suck all nearby matter into itself and compress it into almost nothing.

LordWynne wrote:Been there done that, point wise the 21st century army is cheaper and gets more armor and hvy weapons. Buy the IG gain one thing that means the differance (pysker's and special chars) this offers the best chance of a win. But the role of a 21st century army focuses on eliminating HQ and hvy armor to give its land forces the advantage.

Win goes to 21st century.....in a point battle I played a 2,000 pt game at 2001 Adepticon vs several IG armies and won every time with a 21st century army.

Then you played by stupid rules.