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.

Cult Mechanicus would be the easiest to fight? Uhm, ever heard of the Life-Eater virus? Or Cyclonic Torpedoes... Yeaaaaah, good bye Earth, while they go back to Mars.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
Elysian Drop Troops. Simply because every piece of fluff about them has them coming in, achieving their objective, and getting wipeout before anything happens because their reinforcements don't arrive.



Seems like the perfect scenario. Sure, we take loses, but the rest of the Imperium never shows up, and we spend the rest of eternity wondering what the happened over that week.

As an Elysian player, I agree.

 Ratius wrote:
Eldar and C:SM havent a single vote each.
Do we feel it would be that much of a Curbstomp? Surely Crons would be a more fearsome force to face than C:SM based purely on their tech levels, transport/regen capabilities and gauss weaponry?

You mean CSM rather than C:SM? Chaos unleashed on Earth would simply be hell on earth, literally. The Imperial Guard as it is struggles to fight them, and we would be pressed to fight the Guard either.

 Kain wrote:
Dynasties that insist on honorable combat and one on one duels would be not quite as devastating.

I wonder who would go up against a necron for a one-on-one duel... Chuck norris?

To be honest, being part of the Greater Good might actually save the human race at the rate we're tearing ourselves apart in the real world with religious, racial, political conflicts, etc.

 Desubot wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
To be honest, being part of the Greater Good might actually save the human race at the rate we're tearing ourselves apart in the real world with religious, racial, political conflicts, etc.

Assuming we keep the FFG cannon out concerning sterilization.

Honestly will probably cause lots of issues with the powers at Be, Religion will be a hella mess for a while. But for the most part i though Tau usually left most planets alone.

They do, but typically they like their planets to be peaceful, not at war with each other. So expect pacification of some sort.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Eldar and C:SM havent a single vote each.
Do we feel it would be that much of a Curbstomp? Surely Crons would be a more fearsome force to face than C:SM based purely on their tech levels, transport/regen capabilities and gauss weaponry?

Well, the Necrons depends on the Dynasty.

If they're like the Maynarkhs and open up by juicing up the sun to make a solar storm that instantly fries everyone on the day side of the planet while crashing all our technology with a memetic signal; then yeah we're boned. Dynasties that insist on honorable combat and one on one duels would be not quite as devastating. Trazyn's dynasty wouldn't even cause that much damage;
he'd just teleport in with an army and just nab some loot and disappear before any resistance can be mounted.

Chaos destroys tolerant societies. Chaos cults; like Genestealer cults, can disguise themselves as something innocuous, rapidly expanding through the world as people flock to a religion that can offer actual miracles that defy our understanding of the laws of physics; abandoning existing faiths en masse. And then suddenly half of the planet is devoted to Tzeentch and Aetaeos'Ra'Keres leads a horde of demons, cultists, traitor guard, mutants, traitor military, and thousand sons that razes the other half into a land of ash, cinders, and unspeakable mutations.

Necrons may be mean, but to compared to Chaos they are fun-loving guys. I'd take being roasted by the sun over an eternity of being tortured by deamons any day.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
One thing I've always wondered about the Tau...

... how the feth do they learn to speak some new variant of Low Gothic with every new Imperial world they encounter? Low Gothic is hardly a universal tongue, the residents of one planet cannot necessarily speak with the residents of a planet two systems over, what permits the non-psychic Tau to do so?

A bit off topic, but realistically, every human planet should have hundreds of different languages. Low Gothic is likely a standardised universal language that is used by the Imperium as a lingua franca so humans from different planets can actually communicate with each other. All important people the Tau would interact with would likely be able to speak Low Gothic, so that would be the only language their diplomats have to learn.

RazgrizOne wrote:Perhaps they speak High Gothic to the Administratum representatives/Planetary governors. These guys must know high gothic to communicate with the wider Imperium don't they?

High Gothic is not a universal language, it is a sacred language and only used in rituals (similar to Latin in the Middle Ages). High Gothic is unintelligable to most of the Imperium.

But Low Gothic is not a universal language, not even close. We're told that it's not in several sources. In-universe, it is known that Low Gothic is so diverse, so dialectical, so debased, evolved, modified and mutated that people from one planet might be entirely incapable of speaking to people from another planet, even though they both, technically, speak "Low Gothic". It's like the banker from Boston trying to talk with the farmer from south Alabama turned way up past 11. Their individual accents make them entirely unintelligible to one another.

It depends on the source you read. Some sources have the entire Imperium speak only variants of Low Gothic, others have different languages with Low Gothic as a form of lingua franca. Logically, the first idea is absolutely absurd if you know even the slightest bit about linguistics. Even if all humans spoke Low Gothic during the Dark Age of Technology (which already is impossible), the Age of Strife lasted so long that Low Gothic should not exist anymore, not even in a very slightly recognisable form. It would be like calling English a debased form of Proto-Indo-European.
Even if Low Gothic is just a name for the billions of different human languages, there should be a common language that allows two humans from different sides of the Imperium to actually communicate with each other,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vetril wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Vetril wrote:

 2BlackJack1 wrote:
Although the orks may also crash into the Pacific and that wouldn't be too good for them, to be fair.

A rok (or a few) crashing in the Pacific Ocean is NOT good news for mankind.

Most of the scenarios presented are "flawed", in that they assume a gross imbalance in the forces fielded against each other. Of course we can't defeat a whole biofleet or the whole Imperial Guard.

When talking about roughly equivalent forces in a vacuum (so ignoring possible infestations or contagion), I'd say we have a good chance of taking on most melee-centric armies, be they eldar, orks or space marines.

Ehm... the Eldar are not a melee-centric army. They've got a handful of units that specialize in it, but that's hardly the focus.

Neither are Space Marines. Assume they are a melee centric army in the situation - ie, they attack earth with a bunch of melee units (banshees, scorpions, incubi, harlequins, avatar, wyches...). My point is, if it's melee, earthlings can deal with it reasonably well.

Until we realise our guns are completely ineffective against their armour, that is.

Bring a bigger gun. A battlecannon kills a Space Marine pretty well. Typical MBTs these days carry 105mm guns on average. Let's say a battlecannon is a 120mm gun. Eh, not too unreasonable.

Ratius wrote:Theres also our reliance on technology from communications networks to software in military kit.
Any faction that can "hack", disrupt, or plain destroy that would be a total nightmare for our current armies. So Tau, Eldar, Mechanicum, Dark Mechanicus, Crons.
Other armies are probably less adept at it - Nids, Orks, DE.

The amount of software actually in current military kit worldwide is laughable compared to what people think most armies have. Although knocking out comms would be disastrous.

Big Blind Bill wrote:Dark eldar seem an obvious one to me.

The sole reason they are able to threaten the imperium in 40k at all is due to humanity forgetting how to mass produce SAMs, and instead rely on manually operated flak guns.

Seriously, we were past this stage of weapons development by the 1950s-60s.

Cardboard boxes, albeit fast and pointy ones, don't last long vs guided missiles.

Without their transports the DE would be a favourable match up for a conventional military force. Webway portals and mandrakes not included.

The Imperium does have guided missiles, I don't know where you got the impression that they didn't. It's just that auto-tracking systems and a ton of explosive shells are a heck lot cheaper to produce and more reliable than a massive guided missile.

Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

Big Blind Bill wrote:Dark eldar seem an obvious one to me.

The sole reason they are able to threaten the imperium in 40k at all is due to humanity forgetting how to mass produce SAMs, and instead rely on manually operated flak guns.

Seriously, we were past this stage of weapons development by the 1950s-60s.

Cardboard boxes, albeit fast and pointy ones, don't last long vs guided missiles.

Without their transports the DE would be a favourable match up for a conventional military force. Webway portals and mandrakes not included.

The Imperium does have guided missiles, I don't know where you got the impression that they didn't. It's just that auto-tracking systems and a ton of explosive shells are a heck lot cheaper to produce and more reliable than a massive guided missile.

Not in the actual game they don't. SM get 1 tank. Skittari have the dune crawler. That is it. In the whole imperium.

Everyone else is firing flakk. Hydras, aegis lines etc.

Firing flak is more reliable than a guided missile? Sorry, no. You are wrong. That is why we progressed from using flak guns to guided missiles half a century ago. Flak is cheaper, and much much worse.
Guided missiles are much more reliable, can hit targets at greater altitudes and are more destructive.

In 40k, we can presume that targeting systems built in to flak guns (as opposed to manual-aim flak guns of WW2) are far more accurate than anything we can produce now. Look at the Sicaran Battle Tank, for example. Hydras, in lore, are also noted that "once locked, they don't lose target lock". With regards to reliability, I am referring to field maintenance and vulnerability to EMP. If you EMP a missile battery, that's it. Out of action. You EMP a guided flak weapon, you can at LEAST still fire the flak weapon manually. Additionally, flak weaponry have the second function of being very effective at troops and light vehicles, as the Germans and Soviets found out.

Ratius wrote:

The amount of software actually in current military kit worldwide is laughable compared to what people think most armies have.

Not the high level stuff though. Things like nukes need some serious software to even launch them let alone target them, hell the missile likely wont even fly if its electronics are fried/disrupted.
Anything nuclear too - all of it is controlled by software systems - Iran Stuqnet etc.
Most MBTs also rely on targetting software, very few afaik rely on the old gunner pointing and physically shooting the shell.
Aircraft fly by wire and aeronautic controll flaps/vectors and trust are all 90% computer controlled afaik - wasnt it said without the software programme governing its surfaces the f22 couldnt even fly straight?
I could go on - point being, unless we';re talking about ground pounding troops, mortars or pre 1980s vehicles we're likely to have a severe time with our software and electronics fried. Its why many countries fear solar flares so much (and I dont even mean militariliy - I mean power grids etc).

My bad. I thought you were referring to the warfighter's equipment, which in my research thesis used "kit" a lot to refer to. You are right about ICBMs, vehicles, aircraft, etc.

 Ratius wrote:
Sorry, yeah I meant our general tech overall and reliance on electronics really.

This goes beyond tech and into doctrine too. Most combat units are so reliant on communications with HQ and getting battlefield sitrep (much like we are reliant and used to being ever-connected on our phones) that most infantry units at the company level and below will be hard-pressed to properly operate once cut off from their immediate report-ups - we're not trained for that anymore, unless you're talking special forces-type (aka commandos, SEALs, Delta Force, etc.)

A lot of really good points made here in the last few points. With regards to supply chain, there was something we in Infantry used to joke about our buddies in Armor: "Break through, and break down". Because while Armor can punch through an enemy line very easily, without follow-through troops to secure the breach, even massed tank formations grind to a halt as their supply elements struggle to keep up.

 raiden wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is no small enough splinter fleet for us, a single Hive Ship is enough to nomnom our planet.

I'd disagree, but eh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And even then that would only give us an actual -chance-

Even the smallest splinter fleet will be able to win by a war of attrition. The moment they get boots (hooves? claws?) on the ground, it's over. We may win skirmishes and fights against them, but we're going to do so with losses. So are they. But every loss they take, they can recover rapidly, especially if they've free reign on parts of the world lush in biomass which we can't defend adequately (Amazon rainforest comes to mind). Us? Every human dead will take 18 years to replace (combat-age male). Eventually, even if we win every major engagement, their ability to sustain their growth and our inability to replace losses will grow to a point where critical mass will be reached and we get subsumed under a rolling horde of 'nids grown/spawned from the biomass of our own planet. It may take five years, it may take a dozen years, it may take a hundred years. But we will still lose eventually - that's the scary part about tyranids, unless you wipe out every single last one of them down to the last ripper organism, they will always remain a threat.

Anfauglir wrote:How the hell are Orks winning by such a large margin!? So I guess the majority of voters are assuming that the "modern military" from the topic title are a bunch of totally bat- insane, suicidal dummies? Oh, okay. I guess that makes sense.

Now, assuming that the "modern military" actually want to, you know, have any chance of surviving the encounter, the only logical, reasonable choice is, of course, Tau.

Why?

Tyran wrote:Tau, IoM, and some Necrons are the only choices that will let us surrender and be incorporated into their empires.

Everyone else is slavery, genocide or worse.

The title of the topic is "most want to fight", rather than "most want to negotiate with", and so I think most people took it as negotiation and surrender being out of the question.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
Why?

Because choosing Orks is suicide. Obviously. Choosing Tau is not. Again, obviously. I still live in a world where the most logical assumption is that the "modern military" want at least a chance of surviving the fight, even if they can't win. You?

I'm Army. Let's use a hypothetical scenario where we're fighting to the death, because that's what this topic is, not about which race we can barter a peace treaty with. I'd rather fight the Orks than the Tau. Why? Because our weapons and armor are completely ineffective against the Tau. A lasgun, a laser rifle, is AP5, and can't even penetrate Tau armor. Think about how ineffective a 5.56 round would be. Any bigger weapons we can bring to bear, particularly armor, will be completely outmoded by the fact that Broadsides and Hammerheads can snipe them from leagues away while disruption pods negate our ability to use electronic targeting systems for counter-fire. On the flip side, I'd rather get hit by a bullet than a plasma bolt, which are what pulse weapons are. We have no air superiority against Barracudas and Tigersharks (one variant of which, by the way, mounts weaponry that took down a Titan during the Damocles Crusade). Nevermind Manta missile destroyers, which are larger than any aircraft we can even field right now.

With Orks, we have a fighting chance because they'd rather charge into melee with all guns blazing. Like IG would counter Orks with, massed heavy guns is just as effective a solution. Fire and maneuver works against them. We can still maintain air superiority with far more maneuverable aircraft with the ability to eliminate Ork aircraft at over-the-horizon standoff ranges while they try to get in range to use their guns. Yes, Orks are bizarre, abhorrent, and utterly alien, but you learn to lose your humanity when you enter a firefight. It's what keeps you alive. Modern military fighting doctrine and technology works effectively against Orks. Not against Tau. Seriously, pick up Imperial Armour 3, it's a very textbook example of the Imperial Guard using tactics very similar to the greater battle strategy in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and soundly getting their butt whooped because they had no way to deal with kau'yon and mont'ka type attacks.

 Anfauglir wrote:

The title of the topic is "most want to fight", rather than "most want to negotiate with", and so I think most people took it as negotiation and surrender being out of the question.

Even if negotiation is out of the question, the correct answer is still Tau. Why? Because all the other factions will appear to the "modern military", by comparison, as completely insane, genocidal psychopaths with utterly unstoppable and uncompromising tactics in warfare - extreme ones with little regard for casualties and/or collateral damage. The Orks being particularly abhorrent in this regard. The Tau, however, a) have at least a recognisable attitude to "civilised" warfare with regards to unacceptable losses and the like. And b), negotiation would never be totally out of the question. They will offer peace terms, pummel us for a while, request surrender, pummel us some more, and so on and so forth.

You're missing the point. I don't think the author of the thread was interested in who we could negotiate with. I think he was more interested in seeing what we realistically thought we had the most fighting chance against.

Since we're now at a point of comparing 2k Terran armaments to 40k Imperial armaments, if you've cited a weapon caliber for comparison (autogun, stubber, etc.), I'd like to see your citation for that.

And for the record, a 7.62mm round strikes with enough kinetic force to blow a limb apart. Even with both hard and soft kevlar plates, the kinetic force of one round hitting your chest is enough to pulp your internal organs. Nevermind that, it has enough penetrating power to go in one side of an armored M113 and out the other side.

A .50 cal would be hitting with the power of a heavy bolter, I'd reckon. And if you've never carried a belt of .50 cal ammunition (note: not .50 Action Express, I'm talking .50 BMG) before, you're delusional to think that the standard Imperial autogun is a larger caliber than that. The autogun on the end of page 7 would maybe fit eight rounds in that magazine and weigh like a brick.

To those unfamiliar with firearms, yes, the size of a round matters, but there's a reason why 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds are so much more powerful and destructive than 9mm rounds. It's not size that matters.

 Wyzilla wrote:

No, size does matter.

Ah, my apologies. My point was that size wasn't all that mattered, but I couldn't resist a "It's not size that matters" joke at the end of that, but it screwed up the entire meaning of that sentence.

 Wyzilla wrote:
9x19mm is utterly pathetic compared to 9x57mm Mausers.

Yes, true. That's why I'm saying that if you're just looking at the "shorthand" of a weapon's caliber (i.e. 9mm versus 9x19mm) you're not fully comprehending the full capability of the round.

Also, to my knowledge 7.62mm doesn't actually strike with enough force to literally explode a limb, but rather blow it off. There'll still be some distinctive bits left, or even a significant part of the limb left. Russian ammo tends to create one or two multiple cones, while 5.56 fragments and litters the tissue with shrapnel.

It really depends on where you hit. Remember that the "explosive" force comes from the spinning of the bullet, hence why exit wounds are huge and gaping compared to entry wounds. Hit a small enough person at the end of their limb and it'll look like it explodes. The only time I can imagine a lasgun hitting and causing a limb to explode is if the laser contains enough thermal energy to super-heat the area of impact so great to the point where flesh simply explodes. But in all the fluff I've read, las-weapons have always been a precision scalpel. Presumably, hitting something smaller like a bird with a hot-shot round (much smaller body to disperse heat buildup, large heat transfer) will cause it to explode.

Also, Imperial Armor books state some autogun calibers to be "8.5mm long". While probably not packing the exact amount of gunpowder as a sniper round, I'd imagine it'd be comparable to Austrian 8x56mmR or 8mm Lebel. Something like a battle rifle version of the PKP.

"8.5mm long"? That doesn't tell us anything about the actual caliber of the round since caliber measures the diameter of the round/bore.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

No, size does matter.

Ah, my apologies. My point was that size wasn't all that mattered, but I couldn't resist a "It's not size that matters" joke at the end of that, but it screwed up the entire meaning of that sentence.

To be fair, scientifically the correct sentiment would be "Area, Volume, and Mass matters".

Yes

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
And for the record, a 7.62mm round strikes with enough kinetic force to blow a limb apart. Even with both hard and soft kevlar plates, the kinetic force of one round hitting your chest is enough to pulp your internal organs. Nevermind that, it has enough penetrating power to go in one side of an armored M113 and out the other side.

A .50 cal would be hitting with the power of a heavy bolter, I'd reckon. And if you've never carried a belt of .50 cal ammunition (note: not .50 Action Express, I'm talking .50 BMG) before, you're delusional to think that the standard Imperial autogun is a larger caliber than that. The autogun on the end of page 7 would maybe fit eight rounds in that magazine and weigh like a brick.

Not true, a heavy bolter would be worse, considering that it actually fires HE rounds which are noted to be 'the size of a fist'. Even a regular bolter already is .60 or .75 cal (Horus Heresy I - Betrayal)

Yeah, I won't lie, I think I was pushing it with the heavy bolter comparison. Bolters are, for all intents and purposes, micro rocket launchers on rapid fire.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 raiden wrote:
Longevity=/ advanced or awesome.


Orks thrive because of their biology. They literally grow their own food. They can land on a barren, almost non atmospheric asteroid and bring life to it, their tech is military only. Many orks don't know how even the somewhat logical ork tech works, with mek boyz and larger warbosses knowing. They are just told it works, and beleive it works. Ork logic is very simple. Fight, fight fight fight. They rarely do anything that doesn't including gathering scrap to fight with, planning to fight, or fighting. Most often orks "charge headlong axe in hand" along side buggies and trukks.


Orks are the only race that won't either instantly wipe us out, or out maneuver by having orbital ships hovering in our atmosphere. Our fortifications will actually be of use, as that is where the good fight is.

Its "what army does our military have the best chance against" quite simply, its orks.

Our fortifications? Pray tell, what great fortifications do we have?

The Great Wall of China... It has the word "Great" in it!

 Ferros wrote:
But the majority of Ork, Guard, Space Marine, etc. stuff just doesn't keep up.

Like caseless ammunition for weapons that have ejection ports and shell casings flying out

 Psienesis wrote:
You're still all wrong. While our modern militaries might be able to combat (for awhile, anyway) Orks, that's not the army that they're going to *want* to fight.

They will most want to fight the Squats, because the Squats are all dead, and the risk profile of a deceased enemy is greatly diminished.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner.

Andredre wrote:
I believe a Titan could destroy Earth since it could eat nuclear weaponry & shoots blasts that devour continents.

Uhm, no.

The Dies Irae had to completely shut down and button down the hatches during the orbital strikes on Istvaan III. That's an Emperor-class titan. A Warlord would likely be crippled, and a Warhound and a Reaver would probably disappear.

While the destructive power of titan weapons can range in the multi-megaton range (particularly if you're looking at something like a Hellstorm Cannon, Plasma Annihilator (not the destructor) or other Imperator primary weapons), they tend to be focused on a small area rather than indiscriminate like a nuclear warhead.

 Tyran wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
The Dies Irae had to completely shut down and button down the hatches during the orbital strikes on Istvaan III. That's an Emperor-class titan. A Warlord would likely be crippled, and a Warhound and a Reaver would probably disappear.

While the destructive power of titan weapons can range in the multi-megaton range (particularly if you're looking at something like a Hellstorm Cannon, Plasma Annihilator (not the destructor) or other Imperator primary weapons), they tend to be focused on a small area rather than indiscriminate like a nuclear warhead.

Orbital weaponry is usually far stronger than any nuclear warhead we possess.
Also a focused weapon is far better against hardened targets (like other Titans) that an indiscriminate weapon like a nuke as most of the energy of the nuke isn't going to hit the Titan.

Well, hard to say, really, given that an orbital barrage from a capship usually saturates a huge area much like sailing galleons of ye' olde Terran dayz. There was a handy-dandy "orbital object strike" calculator from some astrophysicist in the early days of the internet that I remember, you could plug in things like the size and density of the incoming object, plus angle of impact, density of atmosphere, density of ground, etc. to determine the force of an impact of an object from space. I do remember creating theoretical scenarios of an orbital strike with my brother, and each shell would hit with the force of a small tactical nuclear detonation. One could theorize that a few macrocannon shells hitting from orbit would strike with the kinetic force of a strategic nuclear weapon, minus the EMP shockwave.

It could go either way. Some battery weapons are kinetic guns (most of them are, really), meaning that they gain kinetic force as they enter a planet's atmosphere. Depending on the class of the warship, other battery weapons can also consist of turbolasers or plasma projectors instead - these would lose destructive energy due to dissipation from atmospheric particles.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
The Dies Irae had to completely shut down and button down the hatches during the orbital strikes on Istvaan III. That's an Emperor-class titan. A Warlord would likely be crippled, and a Warhound and a Reaver would probably disappear.

While the destructive power of titan weapons can range in the multi-megaton range (particularly if you're looking at something like a Hellstorm Cannon, Plasma Annihilator (not the destructor) or other Imperator primary weapons), they tend to be focused on a small area rather than indiscriminate like a nuclear warhead.

Orbital weaponry is usually far stronger than any nuclear warhead we possess.
Also a focused weapon is far better against hardened targets (like other Titans) that an indiscriminate weapon like a nuke as most of the energy of the nuke isn't going to hit the Titan.

Well, hard to say, really, given that an orbital barrage from a capship usually saturates a huge area much like sailing galleons of ye' olde Terran dayz. There was a handy-dandy "orbital object strike" calculator from some astrophysicist in the early days of the internet that I remember, you could plug in things like the size and density of the incoming object, plus angle of impact, density of atmosphere, density of ground, etc. to determine the force of an impact of an object from space. I do remember creating theoretical scenarios of an orbital strike with my brother, and each shell would hit with the force of a small tactical nuclear detonation. One could theorize that a few macrocannon shells hitting from orbit would strike with the kinetic force of a strategic nuclear weapon, minus the EMP shockwave.

It could go either way. Some battery weapons are kinetic guns (most of them are, really), meaning that they gain kinetic force as they enter a planet's atmosphere. Depending on the class of the warship, other battery weapons can also consist of turbolasers or plasma projectors instead - these would lose destructive energy due to dissipation from atmospheric particles.

You mean this?

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

Similar, but not the same. That one had a white background, and a crap-ton more parameters to enter.

Lendys wrote:
At the same time consider that Roman armor weighed about as much as modern body armor weighs.

The modern armor provides better protection against ballistic attacks, but the roman armor protects better against stabbing and slashing attacks. It depends heavily on what kind of weaponry you are facing that your armor is going to face.

Have you actually worn and compared both before? Kevlar hard-plate and soft-plate together is pretty damn good against slashing and stabbing attacks too, if not more effective than hardened leather/breastplates.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Lol no. Kevlar soft plate without the metal insert only supplies limited resistance against stabs. It might do something against a slash, but it will be just as, if not possibly less effective than a gambeson.

I'm just gonna leave it here that I've been stabbed once while wearing hard+soft plates, and am incredibly thankful that I had them on...

 2BlackJack1 wrote:
If an Imperial chainsword doesn't one hit kill, you're swinging it wrong. Which goes to show anything that uses those would be one of the armies that engages in melee with said weapon isn't one we want to fight. Yet again, melee isn't exactly the modern day armies' first tactic, but I'm sure people understand what I'm getting at.

Terminator armor laughs at chainsword. Actually, all armours laugh at chainsword since they don't have an AP value lmao