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.

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

Also if someone starts using it you might want to remember how to beat it...

Indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could also see trench warfare still having its uses even in todays military

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

Yeah, about that..... They were still prepared to fight to the last for their mainland.
Imagine the casualties for the American side... When Americans saw that option, they knew it will be worst then Germany.
So they decided to drop a BIG F****** BOMB and watch the show from afar...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Point taken. Not literally conscripts but not quite solders yet.

Brother Coa wrote:

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

Yeah, about that..... They were still prepared to fight to the last for their mainland.
Imagine the casualties for the American side... When Americans saw that option, they knew it will be worst then Germany.
So they decided to drop a BIG F****** BOMB and watch the show from afar...

There was no military need to invade Japan. The allies could simply have ignored the Japanese mainland and let people starve to death, because they had already sunk practically all of the Japanese navy and merchant fleet.

That is what is called a strategy -- what this thread is supposedly about.

Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?

You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.

The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.

And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."

Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.

Lord Harrab wrote:Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?

You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.

The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.

And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."

Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.

Exactly why the Krieg(trench warfare), Tallarn(mobile warfare), Jantine(Air warfare), Elysian(Drop specialists), Tanith(stealth specialists), Cadian(Creed warfare) and Catachans(commando tactics) are around for. So the Guard can adapt suitable tactics to face suitable foes, instead of relying purely on numerical superiority. Just like when van Voytz ordered a crack team of Tanith to drop in to Ouranberg to assasinate the traitor leader so that there would be less casualties even though the Guard outnumbered the Blood Pact force nearly 2 to 1.

Lord Harrab wrote:Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?

You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.

The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.

And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."

Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.

When you have cheap FTL travel, nothing on the ground is important anymore. Mining moons and asteroids is easier than mining a planet thanks to not needing to ship it up a gravity well. Living in space is equally cheap, just hollow out a nice rock and you can cram millions in at less density than a hive world. It gets even better if you hollow out rocks and use the inards to build space habs.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:Why are people saying airpower alone can win wars?

You can bomb a nation all you like, but you can't claim that nation unless you get some boots on the ground and take it.

The Imperial Guard operates on a similar mindset, if they wanted to they could bomb a rebel city into dust if that was the goal, but sometimes its what's in the city thats important, so in go the guardsmen to clear out the enemy and claim the objectives.

And i still shake my head at everyone who thinks the Ig is "Attach bayonets and charge that heavy bolter."

Sometimes, thats whats needed or all that can be done, but with all the specialized regiments out there, you'd think those people would realize the guard is quite adaptable in its strategic and tactical planning, hell just look at the codex.

When you have cheap FTL travel, nothing on the ground is important anymore. Mining moons and asteroids is easier than mining a planet thanks to not needing to ship it up a gravity well. Living in space is equally cheap, just hollow out a nice rock and you can cram millions in at less density than a hive world. It gets even better if you hollow out rocks and use the inards to build space habs.

What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?

If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.


As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.


A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.

Canadian 5th wrote:
When you have cheap FTL travel, nothing on the ground is important anymore. Mining moons and asteroids is easier than mining a planet thanks to not needing to ship it up a gravity well. Living in space is equally cheap, just hollow out a nice rock and you can cram millions in at less density than a hive world. It gets even better if you hollow out rocks and use the inards to build space habs.

It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.

Kilkrazy wrote:
There was no military need to invade Japan. The allies could simply have ignored the Japanese mainland and let people starve to death, because they had already sunk practically all of the Japanese navy and merchant fleet.
That is what is called a strategy -- what this thread is supposedly about.

We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.

That is all incorrect. You seem to have a very unusual set of references from which you are working.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back to the topic, would anyone like to disagree with my proposal that IG strategies would revolve around positional warfare and attrition?

Kilkrazy wrote:That is all incorrect. You seem to have a very unusual set of references from which you are working.

History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).

Back to the topic, would anyone like to disagree with my proposal that IG strategies would revolve around positional warfare and attrition?

Elysians, Tanith, Harakoni... their strategies are everything but positional warfare and attrition.
But most Guard army's fight with those 2 ( you can't Blitz a planet ).

Lord Harrab wrote:What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?

What doesn't it have to do with it is the bigger question? The IoM is stupid for even holding actual worlds. Things like space habitats are harder to attack and easier to defend and can produce and ship things much more efficiently simply due to not needing to send them up a gravity well. This the guard aren't needed at all in their current form as there is nothing worth fighting over on any planet. Factory gone, build a new one. Chaos artifact, nuke it from orbit. Hab rebels, blast it. No need for the guard anymore.

If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.

Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.

As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.

As it explained that cost could be removed entirely by a simple change.

A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.

So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.

It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.

They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.

We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.

You're a spam bot right?
The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.

Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.

History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).

Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.

Canadian 5th wrote:

We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.

You're a spam bot right?
The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.

They would attack eventually if they didn't invent the A-bomb. They only wanted to end the war as fast as possible, even if mening losing 200.000 marines ( that was estimated casulty rate in conqering Japan that Americans calculate ).

Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.

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

See Project Ni. Japanese scientist already have some idea how to make bomb, the only problem was uranium - they didn't have any. They asked the Germans for some in 1943, Germans send 3 ships and they were sunk by Soviet submarines. So Japan never had resources to make one, but they definitively knew how to make one.

History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).

Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.

Tell that to the man died in Normandy, Stalingrad, Berlin, Arnhem...

You realize that all those examples are ones where poor reasoning was used or sending in the troops was actually the best option, right?

Canadian 5th wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?

What doesn't it have to do with it is the bigger question? The IoM is stupid for even holding actual worlds. Things like space habitats are harder to attack and easier to defend and can produce and ship things much more efficiently simply due to not needing to send them up a gravity well. This the guard aren't needed at all in their current form as there is nothing worth fighting over on any planet. Factory gone, build a new one. Chaos artifact, nuke it from orbit. Hab rebels, blast it. No need for the guard anymore.

If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.

Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.

As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.

As it explained that cost could be removed entirely by a simple change.

A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.

So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.

It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.

They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.

We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.

You're a spam bot right?
The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.

Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.

History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).

Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.

Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.

purplefood wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:What's that got to do with Guard strategy? or 40k for that matter?

What doesn't it have to do with it is the bigger question? The IoM is stupid for even holding actual worlds. Things like space habitats are harder to attack and easier to defend and can produce and ship things much more efficiently simply due to not needing to send them up a gravity well. This the guard aren't needed at all in their current form as there is nothing worth fighting over on any planet. Factory gone, build a new one. Chaos artifact, nuke it from orbit. Hab rebels, blast it. No need for the guard anymore.

If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.

Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.

As for the IG people forget exactly how much manpower the Imperium actually has at it's disposal. At times it gets to the point were Lord-Generals can actually use such basic tactics and win. It's not the status quo of Guard tactics, but it is out there.

As it explained that cost could be removed entirely by a simple change.

A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.

So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.

It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.

They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.

We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.

You're a spam bot right?
The Americans never wanted to invade as the losses they estimated were stupidly high. They wanted to do anything besides that and knew that this would show the world they had nukes and would uses them, and that it would end the war.

Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.

History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).

Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.

Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.

Not too mention it would be harder to produce food, water, and other essentials without resources on the planets. The IOM also has huge populations that could hardly fit on moons alone. They could and usually do host military bases on moons or mine them for their own resources, but at the IOM's size it's more practicle to hold planets

I would also like to mention that 40k does not have cheap FTL. Every time you enter FTL, you are risking:

1) Accidental time travel
2) Being thousands of kilometers off course
3) Being eaten by daemons
4) Being eaten by void predators (like void whales)
5) Being crushed by titanic forces unknown to mankind
6) Being driven insane
7) Being trapped indefinitely.
EDIT: 8) Being infected with a warp-virus

I would say that "cheap" FTL in 40k is hard to come by.

Brother Coa wrote:They would attack eventually if they didn't invent the A-bomb. They only wanted to end the war as fast as possible, even if mening losing 200.000 marines ( that was estimated casulty rate in conqering Japan that Americans calculate ).

That's one source only. Other estimates places the losses at much larger numbers for total loses if the invasion happened. The Americans knew of the preparations being done in Japan with the Japanese going so far as to arm students with icepicks and tell girls to tie their ankles before killing themselves so their legs don't fall open when they die.

These people were more than ready to fight until the bombs fell and they knew they would never be able to kill another American because the US didn't have to fight where they could fight back.

Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.

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

See Project Ni. Japanese scientist already have some idea how to make bomb, the only problem was uranium - they didn't have any. They asked the Germans for some in 1943, Germans send 3 ships and they were sunk by Soviet submarines. So Japan never had resources to make one, but they definitively knew how to make one.

Find me a debate, or program anywhere that accepts Wikipedia as a source. When I use them I actually find what the sources are, check if they are correct, and then post only the relevant sections after proofing my sources. Your link isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the Japanese getting the bomb though as working on something doesn't mean that the something being worked on is a credible threat.

Here's a few quotes from the article:

'it [the Japanese atomic program] suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945'

'This resulted in the formation of the Committee on Research in the Application of Nuclear Physics, chaired by Nishina, that met ten times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded in a report that while an atomic bomb was, in principle, feasible, "it would probably be difficult even for the United States to realize the application of atomic power during the war". This caused the Navy to lose interest and to concentrate instead on research into radar'

'By February 1945, a small group of scientists had succeeded in producing a small amount of material in a rudimentary separator in the Riken complex - material which Riken's cyclotron indicated was not Uranium-235.'

'The Japanese also requested materials from their German allies and 560 kg (1,200 lb) of unprocessed uranium oxide was dispatched to Japan in April 1945 aboard the submarine U-234, which however surrendered to US forces'

'The work went slowly, but shortly before the end of the war he had designed an ultracentrifuge (to spin at 60,000 rpm) which he was hopeful would achieve the required results. Only the design of the machinery was completed before the Japanese surrender.'

In short, the Japanese had no material to build the bomb, lacked any large scale source of heavy water that would be needed to make their testing successful, and even had that not been an issue had no planes left that could carry the weapon to America. Thus the Japanese were never a true nuclear threat and any claims that they were are as laughable as saying German was also close. Any claims of testing in late 45 early 46 have also already been debunked by historians with very few sources still making claims that they indeed had the capability to even attempt to test the weapon.

History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).

Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.

Tell that to the man died in Normandy, Stalingrad, Berlin, Arnhem...

The atomic bomb was never ready to be used in those cases and flying allied bombers from Britain, or even Africa to Stalingrad would never have been feasible at the time that battle was taking place. D-Day and Normandy campaign were carried out under heavy air coverage, but again no nuclear weapons existed or they would have been used on Berlin in an attempt to end the war. The weapons simply weren't ready and/or even if they had been in many cases simply flying the bomb in would have been difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.

Wonderful, they kill one habitat, likely not even do that fully, while the fleet comes in and removes the threat. Even blasting a hole in the side can be dealt with if your damage control is decent. Then the foe would still need to land, cut through sealed doors and collapsed bulkheads, and keep fighting room by room to flush you out.

Every fight would now be a boarding action.

Canadian 5th wrote:
That's one source only. Other estimates places the losses at much larger numbers for total loses if the invasion happened. The Americans knew of the preparations being done in Japan with the Japanese going so far as to arm students with icepicks and tell girls to tie their ankles before killing themselves so their legs don't fall open when they die.

These people were more than ready to fight until the bombs fell and they knew they would never be able to kill another American because the US didn't have to fight where they could fight back.

One source that is true.

Find me a debate, or program anywhere that accepts Wikipedia as a source. When I use them I actually find what the sources are, check if they are correct, and then post only the relevant sections after proofing my sources. Your link isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the Japanese getting the bomb though as working on something doesn't mean that the something being worked on is a credible threat.

Here's a few quotes from the article:

[i]'it [the Japanese atomic program] suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945'

'This resulted in the formation of the Committee on Research in the Application of Nuclear Physics, chaired by Nishina, that met ten times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded in a report that while an atomic bomb was, in principle, feasible, "it would probably be difficult even for the United States to realize the application of atomic power during the war". This caused the Navy to lose interest and to concentrate instead on research into radar'

'By February 1945, a small group of scientists had succeeded in producing a small amount of material in a rudimentary separator in the Riken complex - material which Riken's cyclotron indicated was not Uranium-235.'

'The Japanese also requested materials from their German allies and 560 kg (1,200 lb) of unprocessed uranium oxide was dispatched to Japan in April 1945 aboard the submarine U-234, which however surrendered to US forces'

'The work went slowly, but shortly before the end of the war he had designed an ultracentrifuge (to spin at 60,000 rpm) which he was hopeful would achieve the required results. Only the design of the machinery was completed before the Japanese surrender.'

In short, the Japanese had no material to build the bomb, lacked any large scale source of heavy water that would be needed to make their testing successful, and even had that not been an issue had no planes left that could carry the weapon to America. Thus the Japanese were never a true nuclear threat and any claims that they were are as laughable as saying German was also close. Any claims of testing in late 45 early 46 have also already been debunked by historians with very few sources still making claims that they indeed had the capability to even attempt to test the weapon.

So if on Wikipedia stand "The second world war started on September 1'st 1939" that is not true?
And everything I said abiut Japanese and their A-bomb project was true.

The atomic bomb was never ready to be used in those cases and flying allied bombers from Britain, or even Africa to Stalingrad would never have been feasible at the time that battle was taking place. D-Day and Normandy campaign were carried out under heavy air coverage, but again no nuclear weapons existed or they would have been used on Berlin in an attempt to end the war. The weapons simply weren't ready and/or even if they had been in many cases simply flying the bomb in would have been difficult.

And what have that to do with planing, using best choices and in the end lose so many man?

If FTL travel is so difficult, why exaggerate the problems by shipping huge inefficient conscript infantry forces around the palce?

Kilkrazy wrote:If FTL travel is so difficult, why exaggerate the problems by shipping huge inefficient conscript infantry forces around the place?

Once again: "conscript" is not the right word in the case of a great many Guard Regiments. They're trained beyond the realm of expertise that we see on most career soldiers now.

As for "if FTL travel is so difficult"--it's not in a great many cases. Things going wrong in the Warp aren't that common, provided the Navigator isn't drunk at the wheel.

because which would you rather lose, your best troops or your cannon fodder?

Not too mention it would be harder to produce food, water, and other essentials without resources on the planets. The IOM also has huge populations that could hardly fit on moons alone. They could and usually do host military bases on moons or mine them for their own resources, but at the IOM's size it's more practicle to hold planets.

Wrong, everything you need for food production, if already up there. You can split water breathable air, and water can be found in great amounts in comets, asteroids, and many other places and can be built out of harvested hydrogen and oxygen. If you have water, and you have crushed dirt you can grow food, aeroponics also work wonders and we're working on such low mass applications today.

Also, it's easier than you might think to fit a lot of people into a space when you're not just using the surface of the object. Heck, using the vast amounts of labor they have at the ready the IoM can easily mine as much ore from asteroids per world, per year as we can pull out of the ground now. With even this limited level of production they would get enough raw material to build 3 cylinders 0.5m thick, by 10km long, by 2km in diameter with enough to spare for a hydroponics dome as well.

Packing in roughly 2,000 people per 1 kilometer x 1 kilometer by 0.28 kilometers would give people roughly double the space of what people in Beijing enjoy. This would allow you to get 2.7 million people a year into space even with low levels of production. A single Ceres size body, assuming 0.1% of it was useful for building, would allow you to build around 8000 units meaning that one rock on our home system could build enough space to 21.6 billion people. Of course larger production numbers such as what 40k has would allow this to be built in much less time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:So if on Wikipedia stand "The second world war started on September 1'st 1939" that is not true?
And everything I said abiut Japanese and their A-bomb project was true.

It could be true, however it Wikipedia itself and many citations found within wouldn't count as proof and you would fail your paper.

And what have that to do with planing, using best choices and in the end lose so many man?

Stalingrad was a key battle, and supply lines were bad on both sides. Losses were higher than needed, but nobody said military command was perfect.

D-Day and Normany went pretty well, the only thing that could have gone better would have been if the allies realized that the Germans classed and built the Panther in numbers suitable for a medium tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I would also like to mention that 40k does not have cheap FTL. Every time you enter FTL, you are risking:

1) Accidental time travel
2) Being thousands of kilometers off course
3) Being eaten by daemons
4) Being eaten by void predators (like void whales)
5) Being crushed by titanic forces unknown to mankind
6) Being driven insane
7) Being trapped indefinitely.
EDIT: 8) Being infected with a warp-virus

I would say that "cheap" FTL in 40k is hard to come by.

Oh, so they don't move large amounts of material, and manpower via FTL now then? Entire armies are supplied from forge worlds that need to get supplies shipped in via warp travel. These forge worlds also get food from separate forge worlds. The produced war machines then move to other worlds where they are used for training. From here these forces move out to the actual battlefield. This is common and the risks are less than age of sail transport and that was still enough to colonize vast stretches of Earth with.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Not too mention it would be harder to produce food, water, and other essentials without resources on the planets. The IOM also has huge populations that could hardly fit on moons alone. They could and usually do host military bases on moons or mine them for their own resources, but at the IOM's size it's more practicle to hold planets.

Wrong, everything you need for food production, if already up there. You can split water breathable air, and water can be found in great amounts in comets, asteroids, and many other places and can be built out of harvested hydrogen and oxygen. If you have water, and you have crushed dirt you can grow food, aeroponics also work wonders and we're working on such low mass applications today.

Also, it's easier than you might think to fit a lot of people into a space when you're not just using the surface of the object. Heck, using the vast amounts of labor they have at the ready the IoM can easily mine as much ore from asteroids per world, per year as we can pull out of the ground now. With even this limited level of production they would get enough raw material to build 3 cylinders 0.5m thick, by 10km long, by 2km in diameter with enough to spare for a hydroponics dome as well.

Packing in roughly 2,000 people per 1 kilometer x 1 kilometer by 0.28 kilometers would give people roughly double the space of what people in Beijing enjoy. This would allow you to get 2.7 million people a year into space even with low levels of production. A single Ceres size body, assuming 0.1% of it was useful for building, would allow you to build around 8000 units meaning that one rock on our home system could build enough space to 21.6 billion people. Of course larger production numbers such as what 40k has would allow this to be built in much less time.

I know you would be able to harvest some essentials, enough for a military base as I said, but you definitely would produce less at more cost than if you simply did it planetside. It doesn't matter if you can fit a lot of people in space if you can only feed half of them. My idea would be to host the military in space, which I'm sure they do. Then the enemy would have to take the space fort first or else be wiped off planet side from orbit. This way they can have the abundant resources from the planet and still be heavily fortified. The only problem would be if Orks or tyranids ignored the base and attacked planetside then some civilians would be lost, even then the orbital bombardments from the base would dislodge them.
Plus when you pack people in like that if you did lose a battle or simply the buildings structure was broken their would be more casualties than their would be if civilians were spread out planetside.

The IG is supposed to be a messy group of bad tactics thrown into limitless numbers, where a bayonet charge can feasibly work, because you have millions upon millions to throw at an objective.

As a representation in 40K, they draw a lot of influence from the armies of the 1914-1980's eras. Meaning everything from Taliban to Doughboys is represented in some fashion. We aren't meant to question the logic of a Sword against a bunch of future rifles, because in a world where an Eldar Farseer can conjure a storm that destroys armor columns, there is a bit of magic tossed in.

That isn't to say future tactics are left out however, as time has gone on we have seen several innovations to the Guard lore and the introduction of the Tau. Both "recent" additions have modernized the look and feel of some of 40K's armies. It's a way we can see guided missiles and elite SF teams make their way into TT and lore. So the idea of trench warfare while impractical by our standards of war, isn't really that far fetched in some of the examples already given by a few posters. What's more is we can see what happens when these "outdated" armies fight newer armies. Tau defeated the Guard a few times when fighting against these outdated tactics, but also lost a few times when the limitless numbers and crude yet effective tactics played out well.


----
As for the Japan discussion..

Japanese Soldiers fought for the Imperial God Emperor (literally) and thought defeat was impossible against the foreign dogs. America then savagely reminded them that we only roll sixes to hit and sixes to wound with our pro-core atom bombs. To which the Japanese replied "h4xz" and promptly surrendered.

It's pretty much as simple as that. Luckily for both Japan and America it was a good game so we shook hands and became friends afterwords.

BeefCakeSoup wrote:As for the Japan discussion..

Japanese Soldiers fought for the Imperial God Emperor (literally) and thought defeat was impossible against the foreign dogs. America then savagely reminded them that we only roll sixes to hit and sixes to wound with our pro-core atom bombs. To which the Japanese replied "h4xz" and promptly surrendered.

Best description of the Pacific Campaign. Ever.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:They would attack eventually if they didn't invent the A-bomb. They only wanted to end the war as fast as possible, even if mening losing 200.000 marines ( that was estimated casulty rate in conqering Japan that Americans calculate ).

That's one source only. Other estimates places the losses at much larger numbers for total loses if the invasion happened. The Americans knew of the preparations being done in Japan with the Japanese going so far as to arm students with icepicks and tell girls to tie their ankles before killing themselves so their legs don't fall open when they die.

These people were more than ready to fight until the bombs fell and they knew they would never be able to kill another American because the US didn't have to fight where they could fight back.

Also, you're going to provide a source that Japan was close to the atom bomb right? From somewhere peer reviewed and certifiable as well. No wiki BS on this one.

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

See Project Ni. Japanese scientist already have some idea how to make bomb, the only problem was uranium - they didn't have any. They asked the Germans for some in 1943, Germans send 3 ships and they were sunk by Soviet submarines. So Japan never had resources to make one, but they definitively knew how to make one.

Find me a debate, or program anywhere that accepts Wikipedia as a source. When I use them I actually find what the sources are, check if they are correct, and then post only the relevant sections after proofing my sources. Your link isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the Japanese getting the bomb though as working on something doesn't mean that the something being worked on is a credible threat.

Here's a few quotes from the article:

'it [the Japanese atomic program] suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945'

'This resulted in the formation of the Committee on Research in the Application of Nuclear Physics, chaired by Nishina, that met ten times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded in a report that while an atomic bomb was, in principle, feasible, "it would probably be difficult even for the United States to realize the application of atomic power during the war". This caused the Navy to lose interest and to concentrate instead on research into radar'

'By February 1945, a small group of scientists had succeeded in producing a small amount of material in a rudimentary separator in the Riken complex - material which Riken's cyclotron indicated was not Uranium-235.'

'The Japanese also requested materials from their German allies and 560 kg (1,200 lb) of unprocessed uranium oxide was dispatched to Japan in April 1945 aboard the submarine U-234, which however surrendered to US forces'

'The work went slowly, but shortly before the end of the war he had designed an ultracentrifuge (to spin at 60,000 rpm) which he was hopeful would achieve the required results. Only the design of the machinery was completed before the Japanese surrender.'

In short, the Japanese had no material to build the bomb, lacked any large scale source of heavy water that would be needed to make their testing successful, and even had that not been an issue had no planes left that could carry the weapon to America. Thus the Japanese were never a true nuclear threat and any claims that they were are as laughable as saying German was also close. Any claims of testing in late 45 early 46 have also already been debunked by historians with very few sources still making claims that they indeed had the capability to even attempt to test the weapon.

History disagree with you ( they were preparing an invasion but use A-bomb instead, just few days after Soviets rush Japanese and British attacked Malaysia ).

Yes, you always use the right tool for the job. You don't send in men to die when you have a better option. You also never stop planning until the end.

Tell that to the man died in Normandy, Stalingrad, Berlin, Arnhem...

The atomic bomb was never ready to be used in those cases and flying allied bombers from Britain, or even Africa to Stalingrad would never have been feasible at the time that battle was taking place. D-Day and Normandy campaign were carried out under heavy air coverage, but again no nuclear weapons existed or they would have been used on Berlin in an attempt to end the war. The weapons simply weren't ready and/or even if they had been in many cases simply flying the bomb in would have been difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Space habitats may be easier to hold against a conventional enemy but some of the enemies on 40k would simply start blowing holes in the side of the habitat.

Wonderful, they kill one habitat, likely not even do that fully, while the fleet comes in and removes the threat. Even blasting a hole in the side can be dealt with if your damage control is decent. Then the foe would still need to land, cut through sealed doors and collapsed bulkheads, and keep fighting room by room to flush you out.

Every fight would now be a boarding action.

Here is a scholarly source on I found on past and present nuclear weapons programs (Japan on p. 4):
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/data/jo_gartzke_0207_codebk_0906.pdf
It does not say much other than the fact that Japan had a working nuclear weapons project in 1943. It would seem that the Japan had not reached even getting close to building a test bomb and were still in the research stage at the end of the war, and the nuclear threat from Japan was still far off in 1945.

For all the discussion on air power, I haven't seen a single reference to the Six Day War. I find that very strange as the Israelis proved very quickly that the nation with air dominance will have a much easier go in war than the nation without, as seen in 1973 when the Arabs learned from their mistakes.

Remember that air power can win wars alone, particularly if you're goal in war is not invasion or taking of territory. War needs a political aim, which is what strategy is in essence, and if that goal is not conquering a nation than air power alone could theoretically win such a war. I don't have examples of this as none really exist, but the point is that the aim of the war will dictate the operational and tactical doctrines used.

Also, every time someone uses wikipedia to back up a disputed claim, god kills a puppy. Think of the puppies!

I think the strategy used by the IG in various conflicts would depend on which regiments are employed and who the enemy is. Rather difficult to use attrition against an enemy unwilling to commit to such a war, like the Eldar/Dark Eldar or Tau. I think the IG is far more adaptable than what the fluff leads us to believe, as we hear very little of smaller conflicts where very mobile regiments were used in well coordinated assaults.

Blacksails wrote:For all the discussion on air power, I haven't seen a single reference to the Six Day War. I find that very strange as the Israelis proved very quickly that the nation with air dominance will have a much easier go in war than the nation without, as seen in 1973 when the Arabs learned from their mistakes.

Remember that air power can win wars alone, particularly if you're goal in war is not invasion or taking of territory. War needs a political aim, which is what strategy is in essence, and if that goal is not conquering a nation than air power alone could theoretically win such a war. I don't have examples of this as none really exist, but the point is that the aim of the war will dictate the operational and tactical doctrines used.

Also, every time someone uses wikipedia to back up a disputed claim, god kills a puppy. Think of the puppies!

I think the strategy used by the IG in various conflicts would depend on which regiments are employed and who the enemy is. Rather difficult to use attrition against an enemy unwilling to commit to such a war, like the Eldar/Dark Eldar or Tau. I think the IG is far more adaptable than what the fluff leads us to believe, as we hear very little of smaller conflicts where very mobile regiments were used in well coordinated assaults.

I agree on the last point, the fluff and books will highlight battles were something went wrong or incorrect tactics were used, as they make for more interesting stories than "The IG completely slaughtered the enemy with superior tactics and restored order" and it also adds to the Grim-darkness of 40k.

On using Wiki as a source, all you have to do to find credible sources is to use Google Scholar instead of normal Google!