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.

Melissia wrote:Thanks for clarifying that Melissia.You should go look up the Dark Heresy books. They have a lot of neat fluff in them.

I have read them all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Also, completely eliminating modern armor is not such a good thing, because while in the fluff, the LRBT may outgun an Abrams, the Abrams is much more mobile

The Abrams has roughly equivalent speed to the LRBT. The Russes have dual purpose rounds that are both anti-tank AND anti-infantry.

Nevermind the stronger weaponry and armor.

Uhlan wrote:It is difficult enough to have a reasonable discussion because of the vagueries associated with the OP's topic. Let's not make it worse by using fluff mixed with the table top rules.

BTW, an autogun in 40k cannot be the equivalent of an M16, why? Because even the Imperium would not saddle the IG with a 5.56 weapon... The Emperor, in his wisdom, would have surely known that you need at least 8mm to put someone down with one hit. Add flak armor to the mix, and, well, bring out the 12.7 or 14.5.

Indeed. The Autogun is a pretty high caliber rifle. And a caseless one to boot-- and despite being caseless it still has better reliability and less dangerous ammunition than our non-caseless weapons.

Well, the IG would probably be like: gak, we're on Terra, lots grovel....

Plus, JTF2 would rape them in the ass.

Nerivant wrote:

Varrick wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Varrick wrote:

Oh look at that; the spit take put iced tea all over my monitor.

So whats this about modern day infantry being better trained and disciplined compared to a notable Imperial Guard regiment? Lets ignore that all Guardsmen go through training that would kill our modern day infantry, and lets ignore the fact that the Guardsmen regularly stare down much, MUCH worse compared to our boys; and then lets assume both commanders are of equal quality.

You're quoting me, but I'm not sure who you're talking to. Mind clarifying?

Clarified the post.

Alright, thanks.
I never said they were better trained or disciplined. I assumed that they received equal amounts of training, but the quality of the training and the technological advantage of the Guard was more than enough to make up for "home field advantage."

But not so clearly or in so many words.

I realize my mistake as well. I meant to say equal but i said better. Don't know why but i did.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Right, home advantage, that works..... Stick your 100 Cadians into the middle of New York and then sic the Marines on em. I guess in that case, if it's just 100 basic IG (with no air support or titans or all of that stuff) against 100 basic Marines (again with no air support etc etc), then my money would be on the Marines. Home advantage counts for an awful lot. Especially if you are in a combat situation....

Okay, but for that to be an advantage, you'd need 100 soldiers who are intimately familiar with New York City.

Lets say they're fighting 100 Guardsmen with extensive experience with urban combat.

Guardsmen win.

But then you are assuming that the Marines would not have extensive urban combat training? And also that none of thearines had been to NYC? They would know an awful lot more about it than the IG that's for sure.

Regardless, Cadians are trained from a very early age how to defend their cities. They would be infinitely more experienced that 100 marines. That coupled with better training over all, better armor, better command, technology and weaponry means a win for the Imperium.

Not in an urban Environment... You can successfully hold off companies of infantry with only a mere "Squad" while holed up inside a building. Assuming that an IG force was attacking NYC, the modern military would use our own buildings much to our advantage.

But, in response to the OP, I would have to break things down to "known" units... For instance, Elysians vs. 75th Ranger Regt.; Cadians vs. 1ID (or 4ID, as they are mechanized); Catachans vs. 25ID (or maybe more fair to have them square up with some SOCOM operators) etc.

Also, completely eliminating modern armor is not such a good thing, because while in the fluff, the LRBT may outgun an Abrams, the Abrams is much more mobile and can maneuver itself into prime position to take out the LR. The "tank hunting" rounds that we use in an Abrams arent designed to make huge craters the way Russes would, they are designed to turn an enemy tank into a smoldering husk of metal. Using a historical example, the Russian T-32 had some great success against the heavier, better armored german Panzers, because of tactics, and mobility.

Define Urban Environment. If you mean a built up business district with many tall tightly packed buildings then Cadians are trained in a similar environment, and are therefore superior.


In fluff, A LR can outgun. I'm not sure what it's speed is or it's maneuverability but it's armor is vastly superior to an Abrams. An Abrams tank hunting rounds wouldn't dent the shell of a Leman Russ, whilst a single shell from a Leman Russ would obliterate an Abrams. Our modern tanks are never going to destroy a LR, and will run out of fuel quickly in a prolonged tank battle where it's always moving around, whereas as the crew of a LR will just throw their shoes into the stove to keep it running, or pick up some dirt.

Melissia wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Also, completely eliminating modern armor is not such a good thing, because while in the fluff, the LRBT may outgun an Abrams, the Abrams is much more mobile

The Abrams has roughly equivalent speed to the LRBT. The Russes have dual purpose rounds that are both anti-tank AND anti-infantry, not just purely anti-infantry. They also have anti-tank dedicated rounds as well, something that isn't in tabletop but is in fluff.

I had read somewhere that a Leman Russ can get moving up to 40kph.. the Abrams can go 45mph, which is much faster. And I realize that the Russ has multiple types of round, as does the Abrams. The difference being of course the various turret types available to the Russ. I think that an Abrams against Plasma loaded LRs would be screwed.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I had read somewhere that a Leman Russ can get moving up to 40kph.. the Abrams can go 45mph, which is much faster.

It varies from source to source, but Imperial Armour is where I got that estimate from. The Russ IS a bit slower, but they're still roughly equivalent in speed, and the Russ is actually probably more maneuverable in turning.

iproxtaco wrote:
Define Urban Environment. If you mean a built up business district with many tall tightly packed buildings then Cadians are trained in a similar environment, and are therefore superior.


In fluff, A LR can outgun. I'm not sure what it's speed is or it's maneuverability but it's armor is vastly superior to an Abrams. An Abrams tank hunting rounds wouldn't dent the shell of a Leman Russ, whilst a single shell from a Leman Russ would obliterate an Abrams. Our modern tanks are never going to destroy a LR, and will run out of fuel quickly in a prolonged tank battle where it's always moving around, whereas as the crew of a LR will just throw their shoes into the stove to keep it running, or pick up some dirt.

Fluff and training doesnt matter when entering an "urban environment". this can be an inner city, highrise laden district, or a part of most towns that showcases buildings of 2-5 stories. Its purely "fact" that the defenders in an urban environment have a HUGE advantage over ANY attacker, and a very small force can keep a larger force from taking their building/block/held area.

Unless, of course, the attacking force themselves is prepared for it...

The IG doesn't have to follow the rules of war that we do. Using promethium fueled flamers to clear out a building is pretty common in 40k. Shotguns certainly aren't outlawed either, nor are the various kinds of fragmentation rounds.

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, the attacking force themselves is prepared for it...

The IG doesn't have to follow the rules of war that we do. Using promethium fueled flamers to clear out a building is pretty common in 40k. Shotguns certainly aren't outlawed either, nor are the various kinds of fragmentation rounds.

Exactly. Geneva convention of warfare means jack squat to them.

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, the attacking force themselves is prepared for it...

The IG doesn't have to follow the rules of war that we do. Using promethium fueled flamers to clear out a building is pretty common in 40k. Shotguns certainly aren't outlawed either, nor are the various kinds of fragmentation rounds.

Very true. With Flame Throwers banned under the Geneva convention we would be at a large disadvantage.
In fact, (I'm sure you guys will correct me if I'm wrong ) cluster bombs and fragmentation weapons in general are also frowned upon.

So, yes, I concede. The modern day army would be royally screwed.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
Define Urban Environment. If you mean a built up business district with many tall tightly packed buildings then Cadians are trained in a similar environment, and are therefore superior.


In fluff, A LR can outgun. I'm not sure what it's speed is or it's maneuverability but it's armor is vastly superior to an Abrams. An Abrams tank hunting rounds wouldn't dent the shell of a Leman Russ, whilst a single shell from a Leman Russ would obliterate an Abrams. Our modern tanks are never going to destroy a LR, and will run out of fuel quickly in a prolonged tank battle where it's always moving around, whereas as the crew of a LR will just throw their shoes into the stove to keep it running, or pick up some dirt.

Fluff and training doesnt matter when entering an "urban environment". this can be an inner city, highrise laden district, or a part of most towns that showcases buildings of 2-5 stories. Its purely "fact" that the defenders in an urban environment have a HUGE advantage over ANY attacker, and a very small force can keep a larger force from taking their building/block/held area.

Training certainly does have a tremendous value when assaulting an urban enviroment. Add technological disparity in equipment as indicated in the fluff and it makes matters worse for moderns in both aspects. Moderns assaulting IG in fortified urban areas, moderns lose BIG.

Moderns defending in a fortified urban enviroment there is certainly more 'quid pro quo', but the result will be the same. Especially when you consider the OP's topic 100 vs. 100.

I will say it again, the IG is not a PDF force. It is the Imperial Guard. It is called that for a reason. The IG fighting and dying by the 10's of thousands in the fluff is only indicative of that battle and the opponents being fought. Opponents with, in many cases, similar to vastly superior combat values on a scale unimaginable to our modern sensibilities. There is no way to quantify that reliably.

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, the attacking force themselves is prepared for it...

The IG doesn't have to follow the rules of war that we do. Using promethium fueled flamers to clear out a building is pretty common in 40k. Shotguns certainly aren't outlawed either, nor are the various kinds of fragmentation rounds.

Those things are all controversial at the moment, but the modern military still uses flamethrowers extensively...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As per the training, modern soldiers do receive LOTS of training, lots.

To be considered "combat ready" a bare minimum of six months training is necessary for Canadians, with twice that for specialized positions/special forces.

And anyone who thinks modern training is light, PM me for one hell of an argument.

The US military hasn't issued flamethrowers to infantry since the 1970s.

ChrisWWII wrote:The US military hasn't issued flamethrowers to infantry since the 1970s.

Because of questionable effectiveness, if I remember.

The only international law I know of relating to incendiary weapons is as follows.

"Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. The protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against military targets near concentration of civilians, which may otherwise be allowed by the principle of proportionality. Protocol III lists certain munition types like smoke shells which, even if they contain White Phosphorus, only have a secondary incendiary effect; these munition types are not considered to be incendiary weapons."
-CCW amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

They can issue them under certain circumstances, but don't.

Nerivant wrote:Because of questionable effectiveness, if I remember.

Something Imperial flamers do not have.

Imperial flamers are rightly feared across the galaxy.

Melissia wrote:

Nerivant wrote:Because of questionable effectiveness, if I remember.

Something Imperial flamers do not have.

Imperial flamers are rightly feared across the galaxy.

Another point for IG technology then.

The "modern military wins" crowd is running on... wait, what are they running on?

IvanTih wrote:Can anyone tell me the current arguments because I don't feel like reading the entire thread.

On-topic,IG stomps as they have much more powerful technology(Lasguns calcs put them in megajoules which is far above modern sidearms,40k Tanks are capable of taking weaponry calced from low gigajoule to middle triple gigajoules,flak armor capable of protecting from said Lasguns),then we have psykers etc....

Current arguments are that some people think that USA can stomp Imperial Guard with ease.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Ummm the OP's original proposition was 100 IG versus 100 Modern day troops....So no, I'm not talking about nuking the whole planet. Just the 100 IG that started the whole spat in the first place.....:p

When you nuke small area of planet, effect are devastating ( see USSR 1986 and Japan in 2011 ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:No. In my defence I suggested that the nuke is a last resort. However, this is a discussion about a fictional time travelling invasion force of future humans attacking modern day earth.

The nuke, therefore is not out of the realms of possibility. Neither is the time paradox out of the question!

Why would IG attack Earth? Can we just compare 100 troops, say that Guard is better and go on next tread...

Jesse... some people this days....

This has been an interesting debate; certainly, it has illuminated corners of the fluff that I wasn't aware of.

For my part, I have come to think that by and large a "proper" IG regiment, defined as one that is well trained and equipped and not a bunch of savages with spears or feudal crossbowmen, would completely dominate anything we could throw against it. Now, as always, the fluff is incomplete and contradictory, but it just seems silly to think that a fighting force 38k+ years in the future will not have access to far superior technology and materials, even if those aspects are poorly understood by the troops using them. Thus, I choose to interpret the fluff as a whole on reflecting the IG as having a military capability that outstrips what we see in the real world. Granted, the forces bear a visual resemblance to modern armies, but looks can be deceiving.

The wonderful thing about 40k though is that those spear wielding savages and crossbowman do exist, which means that somewhere in the wider Imperium there might very well be a regiment of IG (or more likely, PDF) that is pretty much analogous to our modern military forces in terms of structure and capability.

Postscript - I too had always assumed that the LRBT was quite a bit slower than modern armored vehicles, but much more heavily armed and better protected. For example, Lexicanum pegs the speed of the LRBT 10-15 kmph slower than an Abrams. Now that I bring it up, is there even a generally accepted top speed for the LR and other vehicles in the IG's armory?

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Aside: Of you want proof look at how the vastly under equipped and much worse trained Viet Kong hammered the Americans in Vietnam.
Or how the Russian's spanked the German's in Russia.....

The tech was EQUAL there, IG have LASER rifles for crying out loud
And that's not always the case. French had more troops and tanks than the Germans and they still owned them in 1940, even with the British on their side...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
You forget, Germany was winning the war against Russia until winter hit.

Yeah, before their tank body start cracking under the cold temperatures. German steel was beaten by Russian cold


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:No. We Americans are noobs at war. Very capable and skilled noobs with high tech gadgets and lots of money sure. But still noobs. We have a mere two hundred years of experience at war as a nation, almost all of which were against inferior or equal opponents.

I though I will never hear American saying that their army isn't best in everything. Thumb us Melissia, you are my hero


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:Well, the IG would probably be like: gak, we're on Terra, lots grovel....

Plus, JTF2 would rape them in the ass.

What part "advanced tech from 38.000 years in the future" you didn't understand?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:My friend just figured out the best reason ever for the Imperial Guard winning:


In our present time, the God-Emperor of Man is still "alive". Try killing HIM with our "awesome" weapons...

For all you know, He is a Marine; try killing Him with your puny Imperial Guard...

Ruckdog wrote: it just seems silly to think that a fighting force 38k+ years in the future will not have access to far superior technology and materials, even if those aspects are poorly understood by the troops using them.

Except that they have forgotten MUCH technology, and aren't allowed to use others.

One of the main reasons that flamethrowers were considered ineffective was the risk to the operator, and his squad. If safety of the squad is taken out of the equation, they are perfectly deadly weapons. The risk is why they use gas flamers rather than liquid flamers in the movies.

If IG flamers had the same range as modern flamers, you could hit anything on the board from any distance, since you could just fire over cover and use gravity to bring down the fire on their heads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Aside: Of you want proof look at how the vastly under equipped and much worse trained Viet Kong hammered the Americans in Vietnam.
Or how the Russian's spanked the German's in Russia.....

The tech was EQUAL there, IG have LASER rifles for crying out loud
And that's not always the case. French had more troops and tanks than the Germans and they still owned them in 1940, even with the British on their side...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
You forget, Germany was winning the war against Russia until winter hit.

Yeah, before their tank body start cracking under the cold temperatures. German steel was beaten by Russian cold


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:No. We Americans are noobs at war. Very capable and skilled noobs with high tech gadgets and lots of money sure. But still noobs. We have a mere two hundred years of experience at war as a nation, almost all of which were against inferior or equal opponents.

I though I will never hear American saying that their army isn't best in everything. Thumb us Melissia, you are my hero


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:Well, the IG would probably be like: gak, we're on Terra, lots grovel....

Plus, JTF2 would rape them in the ass.

What part "advanced tech from 38.000 years in the future" you didn't understand?

Plus, there are laser weapons today. They simply are not used because they require large amounts of gas, amounts that would be very, very hard to carry when weighed against their effectiveness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

Something which the lasgun does not require, thus making it superior to our current laser technology.

Melissia wrote:Something which the lasgun does not require, thus making it superior to our current laser technology.

Obviously. I was just making the point that we have it. Las-guns are just about the only thing the mechanicus understand, apart from dogma

Now, out of curiosity, do we consider pages 72-78 of the 2001 Chapter Approved as canon that is unimpeachable?

edit: Also, I will grant that a Lasgun is, logistically, far superior to a contemporary weapon. However, every source I've seen places Lasgun performance as equal to Autogun performance, with Autoguns being roughly equivalent to contemporary weapons (except probably firing roughly .30 cal rounds instead of .22ish cal rounds). Is there anything to contradict that? Its what I've seen in Dark Heresy, Inquisitor, and I think even the IIUP states them as, performancewise, equal.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:Something which the lasgun does not require, thus making it superior to our current laser technology.

Obviously. I was just making the point that we have it. Las-guns are just about the only thing the mechanicus understand, apart from dogma

Now, now, this is another discussion entirely! In brief, I tend to think that the Imperium understands more of its technology than people give them credit for (albeit an understanding that is infused with mysticism).

Ogiwan wrote:Now, out of curiosity, do we consider pages 72-78 of the 2001 Chapter Approved as canon that is unimpeachable?

Honestly, I don't think there is really anything in all of 40k that can (or should) be considered unimpeachable. That's what makes these discussions so fun to me; different people bring their own personal knowledge and interpretation of the fluff to the table. Could you elaborate more on the source you mention and what it contains? It is from well before I was into war gaming.

Nerivant wrote:
Because of questionable effectiveness, if I remember.

Oh no, I was responding to another claim that flamethrowers were 'commond and widespread' in the modern military.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:Something which the lasgun does not require, thus making it superior to our current laser technology.

Obviously. I was just making the point that we have it. Las-guns are just about the only thing the mechanicus understand, apart from dogma

That's not true. The lower echelons of the Mechanicus don't understand what they're doing, but the upper ones do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ogiwan wrote:Now, out of curiosity, do we consider pages 72-78 of the 2001 Chapter Approved as canon that is unimpeachable?

edit: Also, I will grant that a Lasgun is, logistically, far superior to a contemporary weapon. However, every source I've seen places Lasgun performance as equal to Autogun performance, with Autoguns being roughly equivalent to contemporary weapons (except probably firing roughly .30 cal rounds instead of .22ish cal rounds). Is there anything to contradict that? Its what I've seen in Dark Heresy, Inquisitor, and I think even the IIUP states them as, performancewise, equal.

Keep in mind that DH and Inquisitor are roleplaying games. They have to balance out the weapons so that they are all fun to use.

So while their weapon stats are certainly more useful than tabletop's stats, they still have to have that kept in mind.

Besides, there is no automatic stub rifle in DH's core rules, though there might be one in its expanded rulesets. Autogun weapons are far more reliable and rapid fire than stub weapons though, aside from revolvers.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, the attacking force themselves is prepared for it...

The IG doesn't have to follow the rules of war that we do. Using promethium fueled flamers to clear out a building is pretty common in 40k. Shotguns certainly aren't outlawed either, nor are the various kinds of fragmentation rounds.

Very true. With Flame Throwers banned under the Geneva convention we would be at a large disadvantage.
In fact, (I'm sure you guys will correct me if I'm wrong ) cluster bombs and fragmentation weapons in general are also frowned upon.

So, yes, I concede. The modern day army would be royally screwed.

The US never ratified any of the weapon ban treaties. We could legally deploy chlorine gas against anyone we felt like, before dropping a few tons of napalm B on top of them and surrounding the area with landmines. It would just be really bad PR, and of extremely questionable reasoning, since modern explosives could do the job better and cleaner.


As far as I can tell, an Abrams would be somewhere around AV10-11, at best. Of course, I don't really know how resilient it is against modern weapons, but I know an RPG can bring one down, though not how likely a direct hit from one is to do so. A modern RPG would be somewhere around the strength of a krak grenade, or weaker, while a krak missile is equivalent to or better than full fledged tank-killing missiles. Since I don't know how well such a missile would do against a modern battle tank (I'm guessing "extremely well"), I'll just give the Abrams the benefit of the doubt, and grant that it might survive. A Leman Russ' battle tank shell is enough to produce comparable damage across every inch of a ~15-20' wide area. An Abrams would be a crumpled heap of scrap if it suffered a direct hit from one.


As for training, the Guard isn't the equivalent of modern soldiers. PDF's are. The Guard is drawn entirely from the very best soldiers in a given planet's defense force, after which they're given another half year of training, before being deployed to a warzone, at which point they train constantly for the months it takes for them to get there, and during any down time once there. They're basically an entire army of special forces caliber troops, which is backed up by the fact that they're expected to be able to take an entire planet, with millions of entrenched, comparably armed enemy soldiers, with only a hundred thousand or fewer troops. Modern soldiers aren't supposed to engage hostile forces unless they're three times the opposing force's strength; Guardsmen are sent against forces that outnumber them twenty to one or better, and succeed with relatively light casualties. I'd be willing to bet that a hundred thousand SEALs with comparable equipment and support vehicles could take Earth, if you either removed nuclear weapons from the equation or added in the sort of orbital support the Guard would have. With Stormtroopers there's no easy analogue, since they're basically what you'd get if you started special forces level training when the subjects were in kindergarten, and only ramped it up from there, with the goal of creating a soldier with "does the sort of thing that would generally warrant a medal of honor at least once every time he's deployed" as a baseline performance level.

Talking about IG Tanks, your forgetting one thing, the LRBT has anti tank rounds that are desinged to puch holes through super heavy tanks the force needed to do that would probably knock an Abrams or Challenger Tank a few meters back and probably kill or injure the crew even if the tank remains in shape