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.

Brother Coa wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:Where is KillKrazy to shut down this tread? You are talking about conscription, armor, weapon and totally gone off topic...

All three of those are on-topic. The thread should have been shut down a long time ago, but because the entire thing is asinine.

What is that have to do with 100 IG against 100 our troops?
We would lose, most of us agreed.
Let's move on...

I'm sorry, but you can't see how armor and weaponry would factor in to an armed conflict?

Not everyone agrees that we would lose; and this thread will continue until they either run out of half-baked arguments or the thread gets locked.

Nerivant wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:Where is KillKrazy to shut down this tread? You are talking about conscription, armor, weapon and totally gone off topic...

All three of those are on-topic. The thread should have been shut down a long time ago, but because the entire thing is asinine.

What is that have to do with 100 IG against 100 our troops?
We would lose, most of us agreed.
Let's move on...

I'm sorry, but you can't see how armor and weaponry would factor in to an armed conflict?

Not everyone agrees that we would lose; and this thread will continue until they either run out of half-baked arguments or the thread gets locked.

As much as I would love to talk about how much force can Dragon armor take or witch caliber is the best for assault rifle or what shell M1 Abrams fire or what is the speed of F-22 Raptor or what is the range of artillery I think that after 22 pages we have clear all things...
And those who think that we can defeat an army from 38.000 years from the future armed with lasers and more fanatical than suicide muslims are mostly Americans or British who thinks that their army's are unbeatable and that they can just walk in another country, kill someone and go out...
I will say it again: We won't have any chance against IG, they are better trained ( even the lowest of the Guard are better than our Special Forces ), better equipped and better disciplined. Those who say otherwise don't know anything about military and should watch History Channel to see how solders act in desperate times and how they act when they are under fire ( More Americans died in Iraq in 2003 by friendly fire than by enemy fire ).
Let's move on...

People still don't agree with that though, hence why talking about modern armour and the capabilities of out tanks and weapons versus those of the Imperial Guard is completely relevant.

Hey hey hey, I am American and have been around our military most of my life (dad was special forces in vietnam then went for his 20 count in the army to retire. Spent most of my adult life working with the military, unable to join due to health issue not qualified, so working ended up working for the military... and have a ton of friends in SF, most of whom I have known since I was a kid.) and I have been one of the ones saying we would lose. I know our militaries strenghts and weaknesses, and frankly how the IG is listed in the fluff of the codex, etc.. means we are in trouble.

Talking about experiemental weapons/armor (or ones our militaries actually rejected) does not change that 100 of our modern military as they are against 100 IG troops as they are listed... means we would lose.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:The Imperial Guard are primarily drawn from the best of Planetary Defense Forces, who could probably be considered roughly equivalent to a modern soldier from a first world country. They then receive further training, and are kitted out with a more advanced version of modern body armor and a perfectly accurate weapon that both strikes instantly and is capable of blasting molten holes in solid rock. At this point, they're expected to be able to take entire planets held and fortified by hundreds of thousands to millions of mutants or cultists, who are armed with weapons and armor roughly equivalent to modern ones, with only a few tens of thousands of soldiers.

I think it's safe to say that man for man, the Guard is a more elite, better equipped force than any modern army.

.

How do you make that out?

The best regiments such as Cadians and Mordians, are certainly elite, but the rest of them are the sweepings of the gaols, asylums and political prisons, shipped out to fill an Imperial quota by getting rid of some dross.

Their equipment and training is so basic that it's a step up to carry a plasma gun, a weapon which kills one in six operators. Their training is so minimal that they rely totally on rigid obedience to orders for their tactics, and morale is so low that they can only be driven into battle by the threat of instant death from their own superiors.

Thanks to all this, despite being spearheaded by nine-feet-tall supermen, advancing behind a curtain of fire thrown up by astonishing artillery and overwhelming orbital support, they struggle to overcome starving, disorganised civilian cultists who have no training and are armed only with captured and improvised weapons.

Their commanders care nothing for their lives, and will happily order them to jump into ditches and fill them with their broken bodies to facilitate the passage of holy, irreplaceable tanks. A single Baneblade is worth more than divisions of Guard.

I think it's safe to say that man for man, the Guard is a desperate, demoralised and incompetent force compared to any modern army.

I think your view of the Imperial Guard is a caricature. Sure, Imperial Guard regiments make use of attached penal legions who are the demoralised cannon fodder you describe, but actual members of most IG regiments are highly trained and well equipped. You can't use game stats to argue your point, because you're working within a system with no proper scale. Just because in game terms plasma weapons get hot & kill the operator 1 in 6 times, it doesn't mean that in the fluff a plasma gun literally has a 1 in 6 chance of blowing up & killing the operator, its just a game mechanic. They're unstable: they *can* overheat, and injure the user, but in reality the plasma specialists would probably receive training on how best to avoid over-heating. In fact, come to that, I can't recall a single piece of fluff I've ever read where a plasma weapon has actually over heated.

Likewise, just because IG potentially take hundreds of thousands of casualties in war, it doesn't mean they're walking across open ground into a storm of enemy fire every single time they fight. Just because some commanders of some Imperial Guard regiments in some battles have ordered massed charges, it doesn't mean thats the only thing they know how to do. I find it hard to imagine a Cadian commander ordering his men to jump into ditches to allow the passage of tanks like you're suggesting.

The IG *have* to be highly trained, competent soldiers to fight enemies like tyranids, demons, and corrupt astartes. Their weapons, equipment and tactics are designed to combat exceptionally dangerous opponents. I don't think they'd struggle with the 2nd rate PDF modern militaries are comparable to. (I say second rate, because the really top notch PDF regiments have knock offs of IG weapons and gear, which are presumably comparable in terms of performance).

Brother Coa wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:Where is KillKrazy to shut down this tread? You are talking about conscription, armor, weapon and totally gone off topic...

All three of those are on-topic. The thread should have been shut down a long time ago, but because the entire thing is asinine.

What is that have to do with 100 IG against 100 our troops?
We would lose, most of us agreed.
Let's move on...

Even though I've been praising modern technology this entire thread, even I know we'd lose. I was just arguing about HOW BADLY we'd lose.

I agree. This thread has become useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:Where is KillKrazy to shut down this tread? You are talking about conscription, armor, weapon and totally gone off topic...

All three of those are on-topic. The thread should have been shut down a long time ago, but because the entire thing is asinine.

What is that have to do with 100 IG against 100 our troops?
We would lose, most of us agreed.
Let's move on...

I'm sorry, but you can't see how armor and weaponry would factor in to an armed conflict?

Not everyone agrees that we would lose; and this thread will continue until they either run out of half-baked arguments or the thread gets locked.

As much as I would love to talk about how much force can Dragon armor take or witch caliber is the best for assault rifle or what shell M1 Abrams fire or what is the speed of F-22 Raptor or what is the range of artillery I think that after 22 pages we have clear all things...
And those who think that we can defeat an army from 38.000 years from the future armed with lasers and more fanatical than suicide muslims are mostly Americans or British who thinks that their army's are unbeatable and that they can just walk in another country, kill someone and go out...
I will say it again: We won't have any chance against IG, they are better trained ( even the lowest of the Guard are better than our Special Forces ), better equipped and better disciplined. Those who say otherwise don't know anything about military and should watch History Channel to see how solders act in desperate times and how they act when they are under fire ( More Americans died in Iraq in 2003 by friendly fire than by enemy fire ).
Let's move on...

Now we have something to argue about again

The lowliest guard is the lowliest guard. Not a special forces operative.

When you join the army, you get a minimum 6-months training, and then continue to train until you die or leave the military. No different than guard, except that our soldiers live longer and so train longer.

Special forces operatives are chosen from the best of the best of the army/marines. You have to have flawless eyesight, perfect physique, myriad general traits, extreme skills with your gun, an additional 8-months of special training that most soldiers couldn't finish even if they weren't weeded out, and they even decide based on personality traits.

Guard are just paid as tithe. In one of the books from "the lost" (cant remember which) one guardsman named boulder was being punished, when asked why, he answered "for fixing a bayonet to a rocket launcher"...

Don't even start with the guard and friendly fire.

im2randomghgh wrote:Don't even start with the guard and friendly fire.

And you don't start page 24, PLEASE!!!

sekerra wrote:Hey hey hey, I am American and have been around our military most of my life (dad was special forces in vietnam then went for his 20 count in the army to retire. Spent most of my adult life working with the military, unable to join due to health issue not qualified, so working ended up working for the military... and have a ton of friends in SF, most of whom I have known since I was a kid.) and I have been one of the ones saying we would lose. I know our militaries strenghts and weaknesses, and frankly how the IG is listed in the fluff of the codex, etc.. means we are in trouble.

Talking about experiemental weapons/armor (or ones our militaries actually rejected) does not change that 100 of our modern military as they are against 100 IG troops as they are listed... means we would lose.

Although the American special forces are elite, they are recruited in greater quantity and so are not as well trained as other special forces (SAS, JTF2, CSOR).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Don't even start with the guard and friendly fire.

And you don't start page 24, PLEASE!!!

If you are so down on this thread at this points, why don't you unsubscribe?

im2randomghgh wrote:

sekerra wrote:Hey hey hey, I am American and have been around our military most of my life (dad was special forces in vietnam then went for his 20 count in the army to retire. Spent most of my adult life working with the military, unable to join due to health issue not qualified, so working ended up working for the military... and have a ton of friends in SF, most of whom I have known since I was a kid.) and I have been one of the ones saying we would lose. I know our militaries strenghts and weaknesses, and frankly how the IG is listed in the fluff of the codex, etc.. means we are in trouble.

Talking about experiemental weapons/armor (or ones our militaries actually rejected) does not change that 100 of our modern military as they are against 100 IG troops as they are listed... means we would lose.

Although the American special forces are elite, they are recruited in greater quantity and so are not as well trained as other special forces (SAS, JTF2, CSOR).

I did not say which groups my father, or my friends were in... And I would thank you not to make insults on their training... Some of the U.S. SF teams are just as well trained as the other armies SF, if not more so. I would love to hear someone say that a member of SEAL team 6 is not well trained.

sekerra wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

sekerra wrote:Hey hey hey, I am American and have been around our military most of my life (dad was special forces in vietnam then went for his 20 count in the army to retire. Spent most of my adult life working with the military, unable to join due to health issue not qualified, so working ended up working for the military... and have a ton of friends in SF, most of whom I have known since I was a kid.) and I have been one of the ones saying we would lose. I know our militaries strenghts and weaknesses, and frankly how the IG is listed in the fluff of the codex, etc.. means we are in trouble.

Talking about experiemental weapons/armor (or ones our militaries actually rejected) does not change that 100 of our modern military as they are against 100 IG troops as they are listed... means we would lose.

Although the American special forces are elite, they are recruited in greater quantity and so are not as well trained as other special forces (SAS, JTF2, CSOR).

I did not say which groups my father, or my friends were in... And I would thank you not to make insults on their training... Some of the U.S. SF teams are just as well trained as the other armies SF, if not more so. I would love to hear someone say that a member of SEAL team 6 is not well trained.

Uh, he didn't insult their training, and he didn't say that they weren't well trained. You're trying to make something out of nothing.

On topic; you can't compare the training of a Guardsman and a SF soldier; because their role is completely different.

Nerivant wrote:

sekerra wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

sekerra wrote:Hey hey hey, I am American and have been around our military most of my life (dad was special forces in vietnam then went for his 20 count in the army to retire. Spent most of my adult life working with the military, unable to join due to health issue not qualified, so working ended up working for the military... and have a ton of friends in SF, most of whom I have known since I was a kid.) and I have been one of the ones saying we would lose. I know our militaries strenghts and weaknesses, and frankly how the IG is listed in the fluff of the codex, etc.. means we are in trouble.

Talking about experiemental weapons/armor (or ones our militaries actually rejected) does not change that 100 of our modern military as they are against 100 IG troops as they are listed... means we would lose.

Although the American special forces are elite, they are recruited in greater quantity and so are not as well trained as other special forces (SAS, JTF2, CSOR).

I did not say which groups my father, or my friends were in... And I would thank you not to make insults on their training... Some of the U.S. SF teams are just as well trained as the other armies SF, if not more so. I would love to hear someone say that a member of SEAL team 6 is not well trained.

Uh, he didn't insult their training, and he didn't say that they weren't well trained. You're trying to make something out of nothing.

On topic; you can't compare the training of a Guardsman and a SF soldier; because their role is completely different.

+1

SF are trained for special missions, whereas guardsmen are trained for a role more similar to that of 17/18th century line infantry.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

sekerra wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

sekerra wrote:Hey hey hey, I am American and have been around our military most of my life (dad was special forces in vietnam then went for his 20 count in the army to retire. Spent most of my adult life working with the military, unable to join due to health issue not qualified, so working ended up working for the military... and have a ton of friends in SF, most of whom I have known since I was a kid.) and I have been one of the ones saying we would lose. I know our militaries strenghts and weaknesses, and frankly how the IG is listed in the fluff of the codex, etc.. means we are in trouble.

Talking about experiemental weapons/armor (or ones our militaries actually rejected) does not change that 100 of our modern military as they are against 100 IG troops as they are listed... means we would lose.

Although the American special forces are elite, they are recruited in greater quantity and so are not as well trained as other special forces (SAS, JTF2, CSOR).

I did not say which groups my father, or my friends were in... And I would thank you not to make insults on their training... Some of the U.S. SF teams are just as well trained as the other armies SF, if not more so. I would love to hear someone say that a member of SEAL team 6 is not well trained.

Uh, he didn't insult their training, and he didn't say that they weren't well trained. You're trying to make something out of nothing.

On topic; you can't compare the training of a Guardsman and a SF soldier; because their role is completely different.

+1

SF are trained for special missions, whereas guardsmen are trained for a role more similar to that of 17/18th century line infantry.

Which is wrong. Guardsmen are trained for the majority of environments and pitched battles backed up by Armour, not at all similar to 17/18th century infantry.

im2randomghgh wrote:
If you are so down on this thread at this points, why don't you unsubscribe?

Because then I go into 40k general and see this thread again in the top...
And I must see what ridiculous thing people have wright down again...

iproxtaco wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

sekerra wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

sekerra wrote:Hey hey hey, I am American and have been around our military most of my life (dad was special forces in vietnam then went for his 20 count in the army to retire. Spent most of my adult life working with the military, unable to join due to health issue not qualified, so working ended up working for the military... and have a ton of friends in SF, most of whom I have known since I was a kid.) and I have been one of the ones saying we would lose. I know our militaries strenghts and weaknesses, and frankly how the IG is listed in the fluff of the codex, etc.. means we are in trouble.

Talking about experiemental weapons/armor (or ones our militaries actually rejected) does not change that 100 of our modern military as they are against 100 IG troops as they are listed... means we would lose.

Although the American special forces are elite, they are recruited in greater quantity and so are not as well trained as other special forces (SAS, JTF2, CSOR).

I did not say which groups my father, or my friends were in... And I would thank you not to make insults on their training... Some of the U.S. SF teams are just as well trained as the other armies SF, if not more so. I would love to hear someone say that a member of SEAL team 6 is not well trained.

Uh, he didn't insult their training, and he didn't say that they weren't well trained. You're trying to make something out of nothing.

On topic; you can't compare the training of a Guardsman and a SF soldier; because their role is completely different.

+1

SF are trained for special missions, whereas guardsmen are trained for a role more similar to that of 17/18th century line infantry.

Which is wrong. Guardsmen are trained for the majority of environments and pitched battles backed up by Armour, not at all similar to 17/18th century infantry.

Stand in a line, fire your guns en masse and hope that the enemy doesn't shoot you back.

Not at ALL similar.

im2randomghgh wrote:Stand in a line, fire your guns en masse and hope that the enemy doesn't shoot you back.

Not at ALL similar.

See, this is why it's pointless to discuss the lore with people like random who haven't actually read any of it.

Melissia wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Stand in a line, fire your guns en masse and hope that the enemy doesn't shoot you back.

Not at ALL similar.

See, this is why it's pointless to discuss the lore with people like random who haven't actually read any of it.

I have read almost every single WH40K book ever released, just sayin'.

The IG's training is obviously more in-depth that what I wrote above, but that is pretty much the core of it. 3/4 of the time, after deploying into a hot-zone, the Guard just stumble about randomly and shoot when they see tentacles unless they can link up with the main force or the pistol of a commissar.

Basing that on The Lost and on Criid's first battlefield experience, amongst other sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And accusing people of not knowing lore whenever their opinion is different than yours is not O.K.

im2randomghgh wrote:

I have read almost every single WH40K book ever released, just sayin'.

The IG's training is obviously more in-depth that what I wrote above, but that is pretty much the core of it. 3/4 of the time, after deploying into a hot-zone, the Guard just stumble about randomly and shoot when they see tentacles unless they can link up with the main force or the pistol of a commissar.

Then you obviously didn't absorb much.

The Guard are not just trained to "stand around and shoot stuff."

IG win there is no dought about it

i'll assume 100v100 no tanks no air power ect

the Las-gan is more accurate, more powerful, has more "ammo" and is lighter.

while flak armour may only be able to take two are three modern shots, body armour these days has NO defence against a las-round.

Think about this logically there is NO way a modern army can beat the Guard who have nearly 40k years more experience technilogical advance medical understanding and even if by some magical feat of heroics they beat a hundred guard they cannot win as there are billions of guard

It's like saying a modern day army could lose against cave men

JamesMclaren123 wrote:IG win there is no dought about it

i'll assume 100v100 no tanks no air power ect

the Las-gan is more accurate, more powerful, has more "ammo" and is lighter.

while flak armour may only be able to take two are three modern shots, body armour these days has NO defence against a las-round.

Think about this logically there is NO way a modern army can beat the Guard who have nearly 40k years more experience technilogical advance medical understanding and even if by some magical feat of heroics they beat a hundred guard they cannot win as there are billions of guard

It's like saying a modern day army could lose against cave men

No, it REALLY isn't.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Lasgun

In the article, it even SAID that they are weaker than projectile weapons. It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Also, if you look at the RoF at the bottom of the page, it is about 40% of most modern assault rifles.

AND it's physically impossible to bleed out from a lasgun wound.

I bolded the part where everything was wrong and/or not backed up by any sources.

im2randomghgh wrote:
It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Uh, no.

A lasgun is on part with a 40k autogun. It's weaker than a bolter, heavy stubber, etc.

And that's not even taking into account different power settings.

Nerivant wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Uh, no.

A lasgun is on part with a 40k autogun. It's weaker than a bolter, heavy stubber, etc.

And that's not even taking into account different power settings.

According to this it is slightly weaker than an auto-gun, which is on-par (supposedly) with modern assault rifles.

Except that the lasgun has approx. 1/3 the weight of fire of a modern gun.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Uh, no.

A lasgun is on part with a 40k autogun. It's weaker than a bolter, heavy stubber, etc.

And that's not even taking into account different power settings.

According to this it is slightly weaker than an auto-gun, which is on-par (supposedly) with modern assault rifles.

Except that the lasgun has approx. 1/3 the weight of fire of a modern gun.

Auto-guns are not equal to modern assault rifles.

And according to that, lasguns are weaker than a stub automatic. Which they're not.

im2randomghgh wrote:According to this it is slightly weaker than an auto-gun

This being your mind, which has repeatedly demonstrated that it possesses almost no knowledge of the lore of 40k?

Lasguns are not weaker than autoguns.

im2randomghgh wrote:

JamesMclaren123 wrote:IG win there is no dought about it

i'll assume 100v100 no tanks no air power ect

the Las-gan is more accurate, more powerful, has more "ammo" and is lighter.

while flak armour may only be able to take two are three modern shots, body armour these days has NO defence against a las-round.

Think about this logically there is NO way a modern army can beat the Guard who have nearly 40k years more experience technilogical advance medical understanding and even if by some magical feat of heroics they beat a hundred guard they cannot win as there are billions of guard

It's like saying a modern day army could lose against cave men

No, it REALLY isn't.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Lasgun

In the article, it even SAID that they are weaker than projectile weapons. It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Also, if you look at the RoF at the bottom of the page, it is about 40% of most modern assault rifles.

AND it's physically impossible to bleed out from a lasgun wound.

I bolded the part where everything was wrong and/or not backed up by any sources.

first of all it has to be more accurate it is a laser based weapon therefore it dosen't tumble. This article just supports my argument granted the rate of fire is less but you will very rarely find a modern day assult rifle fireing on full auto. though yes it is not as powerful as projectile they are fighting normal humans and will do horrible things to the human body

the fact is this will never be properly resolved because all the facts about the las-gun are fictional

somecallmeJack wrote:*snip*
Just because in game terms plasma weapons get hot & kill the operator 1 in 6 times, it doesn't mean that in the fluff a plasma gun literally has a 1 in 6 chance of blowing up & killing the operator, its just a game mechanic. They're unstable: they *can* overheat, and injure the user, but in reality the plasma specialists would probably receive training on how best to avoid over-heating. In fact, come to that, I can't recall a single piece of fluff I've ever read where a plasma weapon has actually over heated.

Actually there is fluff where a plasma gun over-heats, but it is done on purpose (to try ans kill a specific target while being overwhelmed) and the operator throws the weapon at the enemy before it explodes.
Come to think of it, there are 2 where this happens:
Brothers of the Snake,
Sons of Dorn.

On-Topic,
We wouldn't stand a chance. Period.
@im2randoomghgh. If it doesn't specify which projectile weapon, then why assume they are weaker than modern weapons?
The most common projectile weapons in use in 40k are Bolters and Autoguns, it makes perfect sense for lasguns to be weaker than the SM standard weapon, but not weaker than the Imperial Army standard weapon (as the lasgun was introduced to be a replacement for the autogun due to logistics and ease of use/maintenance), not because it is weaker, they are the same pretty much.
And not being able to bleed out isnt necessarily a good thing, the force being expelled into your body fuses all the blood vessels therefore causing internal bleeding (which is a well-known reason for people dying today), which in turn causes pressure on internal organs (for example, if hit in the chest, you will lose the ability to breath as you cannot create low pressure in your chest and hence cannot draw air into your lungs.

JamesMclaren123 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

JamesMclaren123 wrote:IG win there is no dought about it

i'll assume 100v100 no tanks no air power ect

the Las-gan is more accurate, more powerful, has more "ammo" and is lighter.

while flak armour may only be able to take two are three modern shots, body armour these days has NO defence against a las-round.

Think about this logically there is NO way a modern army can beat the Guard who have nearly 40k years more experience technilogical advance medical understanding and even if by some magical feat of heroics they beat a hundred guard they cannot win as there are billions of guard

It's like saying a modern day army could lose against cave men

No, it REALLY isn't.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Lasgun

In the article, it even SAID that they are weaker than projectile weapons. It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Also, if you look at the RoF at the bottom of the page, it is about 40% of most modern assault rifles.

AND it's physically impossible to bleed out from a lasgun wound.

I bolded the part where everything was wrong and/or not backed up by any sources.

first of all it has to be more accurate it is a laser based weapon therefore it dosen't tumble. This article just supports my argument granted the rate of fire is less but you will very rarely find a modern day assult rifle fireing on full auto. though yes it is not as powerful as projectile they are fighting normal humans and will do horrible things to the human body

That doesn't stop it from tumbling, it only makes you not have to take into account the Coriolis Effect, but if you are firing a las-gun from far enough away for the Coriolis Effect to matter, than it's beam is going to be pathetically diminished by the time it reached it's target.

It WILL do horrible things to the human body, but make it bleed is not one of them.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

somecallmeJack wrote:*snip*
Just because in game terms plasma weapons get hot & kill the operator 1 in 6 times, it doesn't mean that in the fluff a plasma gun literally has a 1 in 6 chance of blowing up & killing the operator, its just a game mechanic. They're unstable: they *can* overheat, and injure the user, but in reality the plasma specialists would probably receive training on how best to avoid over-heating. In fact, come to that, I can't recall a single piece of fluff I've ever read where a plasma weapon has actually over heated.

Actually there is fluff where a plasma gun over-heats, but it is done on purpose (to try ans kill a specific target while being overwhelmed) and the operator throws the weapon at the enemy before it explodes.
Come to think of it, there are 2 where this happens:
Brothers of the Snake,
Sons of Dorn.

On-Topic,
We wouldn't stand a chance. Period.
@im2randoomghgh. If it doesn't specify which projectile weapon, then why assume they are weaker than modern weapons?
The most common projectile weapons in use in 40k are Bolters and Autoguns, it makes perfect sense for lasguns to be weaker than the SM standard weapon, and also weaker than the Imperial Army standard weapon (as the lasgun was introduced to be a replacement for the autogun due to logistics and ease of use/maintenance)
And not being able to bleed out isnt necessarily a good thing, the force being expelled into your body fuses all the blood vessels therefore causing internal bleeding (which is a well-known reason for people dying today), which in turn causes pressure on internal organs (for example, if hit in the chest, you will lose the ability to breath as you cannot create low pressure in your chest and hence cannot draw air into your lungs.

On the flip side of that, you could theretically survive having your juggular lacerated, as long as it is minor, and done by a lasgun.
And that happens to cause internal bleeding whether it is solid-slug or not, except that with the laser, you DON'T need to have extensive bandaging. As long as nothings missing, all you would really need is painkillers and back to the frontline you go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:According to this it is slightly weaker than an auto-gun

This being your mind, which has repeatedly demonstrated that it possesses almost no knowledge of the lore of 40k?

Lasguns are not weaker than autoguns.

This being a sister-site of wikipedia, which happens to be as accurate as encyclopedia brittanica.

And it's funny, I was just about to say the EXACT SAME THING about you.

im2randomghgh wrote:

JamesMclaren123 wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

JamesMclaren123 wrote:IG win there is no dought about it

i'll assume 100v100 no tanks no air power ect

the Las-gan is more accurate, more powerful, has more "ammo" and is lighter.

while flak armour may only be able to take two are three modern shots, body armour these days has NO defence against a las-round.

Think about this logically there is NO way a modern army can beat the Guard who have nearly 40k years more experience technilogical advance medical understanding and even if by some magical feat of heroics they beat a hundred guard they cannot win as there are billions of guard

It's like saying a modern day army could lose against cave men

No, it REALLY isn't.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Lasgun

In the article, it even SAID that they are weaker than projectile weapons. It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Also, if you look at the RoF at the bottom of the page, it is about 40% of most modern assault rifles.

AND it's physically impossible to bleed out from a lasgun wound.

I bolded the part where everything was wrong and/or not backed up by any sources.

first of all it has to be more accurate it is a laser based weapon therefore it dosen't tumble. This article just supports my argument granted the rate of fire is less but you will very rarely find a modern day assult rifle fireing on full auto. though yes it is not as powerful as projectile they are fighting normal humans and will do horrible things to the human body

That doesn't stop it from tumbling, it only makes you not have to take into account the Coriolis Effect, but if you are firing a las-gun from far enough away for the Coriolis Effect to matter, than it's beam is going to be pathetically diminished by the time it reached it's target.

It WILL do horrible things to the human body, but make it bleed is not one of them.

Light travels in striaght lines and from a las-gun the beam will hit exactly where the rifle is pointing due to the properties of light. yes the light will spread out but the margine is very small over hundreds of meters the beam diamiter will only increase by a few centimeters. Granted it won't bleed but you don't have to bleed to die, if a las-round hits a helment (and doesn't go through) then the heat will cook the brain and the victim will die.

im2randomghgh wrote:

JamesMclaren123 wrote:IG win there is no dought about it

i'll assume 100v100 no tanks no air power ect

the Las-gan is more accurate, more powerful, has more "ammo" and is lighter.

while flak armour may only be able to take two are three modern shots, body armour these days has NO defence against a las-round.

Think about this logically there is NO way a modern army can beat the Guard who have nearly 40k years more experience technilogical advance medical understanding and even if by some magical feat of heroics they beat a hundred guard they cannot win as there are billions of guard

It's like saying a modern day army could lose against cave men

No, it REALLY isn't.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Lasgun

In the article, it even SAID that they are weaker than projectile weapons. It didn't specify which, so we have to assume all.

Also, if you look at the RoF at the bottom of the page, it is about 40% of most modern assault rifles.

AND it's physically impossible to bleed out from a lasgun wound.

I bolded the part where everything was wrong and/or not backed up by any sources.

Weaker than 40K projectile weapons, which are a lot more powerful than ours.

WE KNOW the lasgun is lighter. WE KNOW is has more ammo. ITS A LASER, therefore, more accurate than any infantry projectile weapon we have, except of course sniper rifles who are vastly outclassed by their 40k counterparts in every way.

Why have we just suddenly started talking about the effectiveness of a lasgun? There is not a single infantry rifle that comes close to it.

Yeah maybe you can't bleed out, but when a guardsmen puts a hole through your chest you can fit your arm through and melts you're super awesome not at all effective body armour to your chest and then does that to most of your freinds without reloading, whilst taking hits from all around him whilst running forwards shouting praise to the Emperor with 99 similarly capable friends, will it matter? No. You will be dead from that single wound. Or in so much pain and suffering that you just lie there screaming as a Commissar puts a bolt round into you're skull.

This being a sister-site of wikipedia, which happens to be as accurate as encyclopedia brittanica.

No it's not.

In this case, it is wrong. Lasguns are, and have long been, equal to autoguns in damage capability . They are in tabletop, they are in inquisitor, they are in dark heresy, they are in rogue trader, they are in deathwatch. They are in the Cain series, they actually do MORE damage than autoguns in the Gaunt's Ghosts series, etc etc etc.

The editor of that wiki article is not an expert. He or she is a fan. A fan who is wrong. Much like you.

On the flip side of that, you could theretically survive having your juggular lacerated, as long as it is minor, and done by a lasgun.
And that happens to cause internal bleeding whether it is solid-slug or not, except that with the laser, you DON'T need to have extensive bandaging. As long as nothings missing, all you would really need is painkillers and back to the frontline you go.

Huh?how can you survive having your Jugular lacerated?
This is the closest thing i have found and it basically says you cant (or you have a really low chance of survival even with a Doctor present and being near a Hospital. Yeah theoretically its possible, but not in RL (and if it did you are the luckiest in the world). If it was a lasgun wound, then how the Feth are they going to cut out the fused flesh and replace it with....what? I was talking about damage to internal organs due to internal bleeding, however even with a throat wound, the blood loss caused by ruptures veins and arteries (caused by the force of the shot not being enough to fuse the flesh, but to damage capillaries/veins/arteries) would still cause you to die.