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.

[edit: delete, thought this post had vanished.]

Terminus wrote:IG will just spam AV12 FTW.

On a somewhat related note, I wish they included the specialized rounds in the codex to make Basilisks more interesting/fieldable.

+1 on both counts.

Melissia wrote:

LordWynne wrote:flak armor
krak
missile launcher
grenade launcher
mortar
predator type armed with auto cannon, hvy stubber

Yeah, all of these are wrong. There's no proof that our krak nades, krak missiles, mortars, or tanks are equivalent to any of these, and I KNOW that our body armor isn't equivalent to Flak Armor.

Rouge Trader stats that this gear is equivlant to todays modern weaponry, If I were a commanding officer of the US Army against Imperial Army or Marines. I would order a multi-cruise missile attack with heavy cluster warhead, that will effect both infanrty and armor, use the same cruise missle to lay mine fields on my flanks and have the 5th Armored infantry spear head the attack with Bradley's and Abrams. Everything will be given air to ground support from Appachie choppers and F-21 Raptor fighter craft, "Steel Rain" baby.....nothing would survive, along with 2,000 lb smart bombs and satalite imaging the forces of the Imperium will take a second thouhgt on invasion after that.

LordWynne wrote:Rouge Trader stats that this gear is equivlant to todays modern weaponry

Yeaaaaah... and Rogue Trader was released 23 years ago. Its fluff is no longer necessarily accurate now.

Melissia wrote:

LordWynne wrote:Rouge Trader stats that this gear is equivlant to todays modern weaponry

Yeaaaaah... and Rogue Trader was released 23 years ago. Its fluff is no longer necessarily accurate now.

More importantly, how would 23 year old fluff be accurate to TODAYS modern weaponry. Keep in mind how "modern" our weaponry was in the 80s vs today....

When it comes to personal arms, our weaponry hasn't changed much. The best handgun is still Browning's century-old design. The M16 series and equivalent rifles were introduced in the 60s.

We've seen great advances in optics, some minor strides in cartridge design, and there have been some upgrades to these weapons to make them suitable for competition, but the average soldier's standard issue is the same gak they were issued in the 80s.

LordWynne wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LordWynne wrote:flak armor
krak
missile launcher
grenade launcher
mortar
predator type armed with auto cannon, hvy stubber

Yeah, all of these are wrong. There's no proof that our krak nades, krak missiles, mortars, or tanks are equivalent to any of these, and I KNOW that our body armor isn't equivalent to Flak Armor.

Rouge Trader stats that this gear is equivlant to todays modern weaponry, If I were a commanding officer of the US Army against Imperial Army or Marines. I would order a multi-cruise missile attack with heavy cluster warhead, that will effect both infanrty and armor, use the same cruise missle to lay mine fields on my flanks and have the 5th Armored infantry spear head the attack with Bradley's and Abrams. Everything will be given air to ground support from Appachie choppers and F-21 Raptor fighter craft, "Steel Rain" baby.....nothing would survive, along with 2,000 lb smart bombs and satalite imaging the forces of the Imperium will take a second thouhgt on invasion after that.

Disqualified, you're forgetting that this is land only.

You mention cruise missiles, which are fired from a 1) UAS, 2) fast moving flyer, 3) Naval vessel.
You also mention Apaches and F-21s. You could argue that AH-64s could be comparable to skimmers in that they move low to the ground and provide close fire support, so I'd allow that, but F-21s are right out, that's air supremacy.

The Raptor is actually the F22. F21 is an Israeli craft.

The F22 also had a limited production run and was cut of funding by the hippies in Washington for being too badass and expensive. Its avionics are already considered out of date, too, and probably wouldn't be able to handle Imperial aircraft. After all, even crappy watered-down STC copies of Dark Age tech outstrips ours by several tens of thousands of years.

Terminus wrote:When it comes to personal arms, our weaponry hasn't changed much. The best handgun is still Browning's century-old design. The M16 series and equivalent rifles were introduced in the 60s.

Right. They even released a new version of the M1911A1 about ten years ago (referred to as the Colt M1991). It's basically just the same design with updated materials and manufacturing methods.

All that changed was to lengthen the grip safety (beavertail still way better) and tuned the ejection port to be more reliable with hollowpoints and other modern ammo (although the army still won't use JHP).

A few manufacturers also offer the 2011 variant, which is basically the same gun with a high capacity frame, but it's used exclusively in competition. One of my 1911s is based on this frame and chambered for 10mm. 22+1 bear-stopping rounds, bitches!

Aside from the stupidity of arguing modern day army vs and fictional futuristic army...

You can't just say land only. As I and several others have posted, modern day armies do not fight land only. In the US military, groudn forces train to work with the Air Force. The marines are supported by the Navy. All of the forces are supported by intelligence services.

Right. And when the Imperium invades, the Imperial Navy provides space-support and air support to ground forces. I doubt we'd be able to manage to maintain air superiority against the aerospace craft of Aeronautica Imperialis. If it's a major battle, Adeptus Titanicus provide siege support (not that there'd be any need for titans against modern forces). Similarly, the Adeptus Astartes might be involved (low chance of this in such a minor battle, but stranger things have happened), as might the Adepta Sororitas-- either of which ave armor that would require anti-tank rounds to penetrate, and thus we'd have a rather hard time dealing with them. We have nothing that can properly counter a drop pod assault, and the Sisters would likely reign supreme in an urban environment. The Adeptus Mechanicus could also be involved if they believe we have tech worth studying (doubtful, but not entirely impossible). And there's always the threat of superheavies such as baneblades and thunderhawks.

Even just land-only it's nowhere near a fair fight, but add everything else in...

Vrakk wrote:All of the forces are supported by intelligence services.

Bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.! Very bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.!

Just to weigh in on the "Earth is doomed" side of the argument, even if we stick to the ground only rule, I'd like to point to current conflicts for evidence of the guardsman outmatching our forces.

Now as far as I know, the current wars being fought tend to be NATO countries against those armed with AK's and the 5.56 rifles we use are suffering against their better range 7.62 rounds. Basically any non urban combat by infantry tends to lean in favour of those with overall superior ranged firepower and the Guardsman has this in abundance over modern soldiers, even with the basic Lasgun.

So yeah, I'm fairly certain we'd be going down hard in this fight.

The 7.62 has its own set of problems. Hopefully the current inquiry by the Army will result in the adoption of the 6.5 grendel or 6.8 SPC, which by all indications seem to be the "perfect" battle rifle cartridge.

The irony is that Britain proposed just such a round over 50 years ago, but the U.S. was busy waving their dicks around demanding the bigger 7.62 be adopted as the NATO standard. Then barely a decade later the 7.62's issues surfaced in Vietnam, and the U.S. pushed for the adoption of the 5.56, again ignoring everyone else's complaints. Now we have the issue of reports coming in from our various battlefields about the 5.56 being inadequate (for whatever reason, none of the tests used as basis for the adoption of the lighter round considered cover in their comparison).

Terminus wrote:The Raptor is actually the F22. F21 is an Israeli craft.

The F22 also had a limited production run and was cut of funding by the hippies in Washington for being too badass and expensive. Its avionics are already considered out of date, too, and probably wouldn't be able to handle Imperial aircraft. After all, even crappy watered-down STC copies of Dark Age tech outstrips ours by several tens of thousands of years.

Yep. Because it has a vulnerability to rain. Read the instruction manual.

ALSO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE CLOSE THIS STUPID THREAD

Terminus wrote:The Raptor is actually the F22. F21 is an Israeli craft.

The F22 also had a limited production run and was cut of funding by the hippies in Washington for being too badass and expensive. Its avionics are already considered out of date, too, and probably wouldn't be able to handle Imperial aircraft. After all, even crappy watered-down STC copies of Dark Age tech outstrips ours by several tens of thousands of years.

Surprised I didn't catch this one myself.

Oh well. It's all Chair Force junk, who gives a crap?

LOL, Chair Force, I'm going to have to remember that one.

Well we currently field assault rifles....sounds like an Autogun....what are the stats of an Autogun? (I always wanted to field an AK armed squad of IG....)

The willingness of the IG closing in and getting into Bayonet and Chainsword range is what probably beats us....our modern weapons are accurate and have great range but we suffer if the range closes. Plus have you ever seen the Bayonet issued for modern M4 carbines.....its about the size of a steak knife.....not intimidating at all.

Dogface 76 wrote:Well we currently field assault rifles....sounds like an Autogun....what are the stats of an Autogun? (I always wanted to field an AK armed squad of IG....)

The willingness of the IG closing in and getting into Bayonet and Chainsword range is what probably beats us....our modern weapons are accurate and have great range but we suffer if the range closes. Plus have you ever seen the Bayonet issued for modern M4 carbines.....its about the size of a steak knife.....not intimidating at all.

Probably because bayonets are completely worthless, especially when attached to an M4. The M4's barrel and plastic stock can't handle the kind of force necessary to stab a man with the pointy bit on the end, and even if they could, when the hell are you going to use them? The idea of IG infantry closing to bayonet range is actually pretty ridiculous. It's far too easy to shoot someone before they get close enough to stab you. This applies to lasgun-toting Guardsmen as well as it does to M4-wielding Marines.

assault rifles sounds like autoguns but its nothing close autoguns fire 10mm caseless rounds and the IG uses lasguns, artillary wise modern forces would get oblitterated tank wise we dont stand a chance infantry wise modern forces would get wiped out by guardsmen even it doesnt seem like its worse if modern forces are fighting cadians led by creed...

now just let this thread die



Automatically Appended Next Post:
assault rifles sounds like autoguns but its nothing close autoguns fire 10mm caseless rounds and the IG uses lasguns, artillary wise modern forces would get oblitterated tank wise we dont stand a chance infantry wise modern forces would get wiped out by guardsmen even it doesnt seem like its worse if modern forces are fighting cadians led by creed...

now just let this thread die

Modern day rifles (battle rifles I should note, not assault rifles) are equivalent to an autogun/lasgun. An assault rifle would be equivalent to an autocarbine/lascarbine (the latter of which does indeed exist, as shown in Dark Heresy). I say this because an assault rifle does not use a full powered rifle cartridge. I'm talking about rifles such as a Mosin Nagant, M1 Garand, and so on which use very large caliber. Imagine something like that, only more reliable, with a full auto setting, and extremely sturdy-- plenty sturdy enough to use a bayonet.

And use of a bayonet is often necessary for the Guard, because of the nature of their opponents. Keep in mind that many of the Imperium's enemies rush into melee, and are sturdy or fast enough to get into melee reliably.

Dogface 76 wrote:what are the stats of an Autogun?

They've always been identical to that of the lasgun, so 24" range S3 AP - rapid fire weapon.

raptor8 wrote:assault rifles sounds like autoguns but its nothing close autoguns fire 10mm caseless rounds and the IG uses lasguns, artillary wise modern forces would get oblitterated tank wise we dont stand a chance infantry wise modern forces would get wiped out by guardsmen even it doesnt seem like its worse if modern forces are fighting cadians led by creed...

now just let this thread die

Why let it die? We now have quite an interesting discussion on weapons going on, although perhaps now the thread belongs in off-topic rather than 40k general.

If autoguns really use 10mm rounds, than they make modern battle rifles look like toys by comparison. A 10mm cartridge would have an entry wound 73% larger than that of the Mosin Nagant/Garand, or AK47/M14's 7.62mm, so our best rifles would be sporting S2. The M16/M4/AR15 would be like S2 and you get +1 to your armor against them.

Melissia wrote:Modern day rifles (battle rifles I should note, not assault rifles) are equivalent to an autogun/lasgun. An assault rifle would be equivalent to an autocarbine/lascarbine (the latter of which does indeed exist, as shown in Dark Heresy). I say this because an assault rifle does not use a full powered rifle cartridge. I'm talking about rifles such as a Mosin Nagant, M1 Garand, and so on which use very large caliber. Imagine something like that, only more reliable, with a full auto setting, and extremely sturdy-- plenty sturdy enough to use a bayonet.

And use of a bayonet is often necessary for the Guard, because of the nature of their opponents. Keep in mind that many of the Imperium's enemies rush into melee, and are sturdy or fast enough to get into melee reliably.

Yes, but if the enemy can survive a lasgun that can rip the limbs off an unarmored human... are they really going to go down to a dinky little bayonet?

Unless the enemy is too small or too fast or the Guardsmen just can't hit them.

And the truth is, if you can't hit a moving target at less than twenty meters, you don't belong in any armed forces.

A slashing or stabbing wound can be quite deadlier than a bullet wound. The forces behind both kinds of wounds are quite different. Take a bullet to the gut compared to a knife to the gut-- the bullet will cause a lot of damage, possibly hydrostatic shock... but the slash across the gut will directly injure more organs and cause far more bleeding. A bullet has a set amount of kinetic force, while a close combat weapon has a constant supply of kinetic force applied by the user holding the weapon.

Melissia wrote:A slashing or stabbing wound can be quite deadlier than a bullet wound. The forces behind both kinds of wounds are quite different. Take a bullet to the gut compared to a knife to the gut-- the bullet will cause a lot of damage, possibly hydrostatic shock... but the slash across the gut will directly injure more organs and cause far more bleeding. A bullet has a set amount of kinetic force, while a close combat weapon has a constant supply of kinetic force applied by the user holding the weapon.

How much "damage" a type of wound can do to the body is irrelevant on the battlefield. Any soldier will tell you that if you get shot in the gut, even if it's not immediately fatal, you're out of the game. That's it. You're done. You get shot in the leg, you're done. Unlike tabletop games and video games, if you wound an enemy, even nonfatally, they're down for the count. Besides that, unlike video games and tabletop games, there is no such thing as a nonfatal bullet wound. Forget what you see and hear in movies, there is no such thing as a "flesh wound," and there is no such thing as getting shot "through and through." Rather, there is, but they have just as good a chance of being fatal. If you shoot someone in the leg, miss the femoral artery, miss the bone, hit nothing but muscle, they'll still bleed out in a matter of minutes. And through-and-through is infinitely worse than a bullet lodged in your thigh... through-and-through means a huge exit wound, therefore more bleeding. Of course, a bullet lodged in your thigh will still do the trick, just not as quickly.

That said, I'm not talking about bullet wounds, I'm talking about lasgun shots, which are much more powerful than your standard 5.56 NATO round. There are instances in fluff where a laspistol shot can rip off an unarmored limb.

Terminus wrote:

Vrakk wrote:All of the forces are supported by intelligence services.

Bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.! Very bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.!

I can just see Marneus Calgar shouting as he takes out some present day troops "Surprise Cockfags!".

In reality though the best bet for our troops is if they turn up to the Battlefield with a large tube of KY Jelly each and then assume the position.

SaintHazard wrote:How much "damage" a type of wound can do to the body is irrelevant on the battlefield. Any soldier will tell you that if you get shot in the gut, even if it's not immediately fatal, you're out of the game. That's it. You're done. You get shot in the leg, you're done.

I don't buy that, and amusingly enough I have my own anecdotal evidence: I've heard plenty of horror stories from veterans in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that say otherwise about their opponents' ability to endure pain and continue fighting. Religious fanaticism and adrenaline can go a long way in ensuring that a wounded opponent keeps fighting.

And indeed, that's one of the problems that is causing debate over whether or not the military's current weaponry is truly sufficient, especially with the growing prevalence of body armor.

Melissia wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:How much "damage" a type of wound can do to the body is irrelevant on the battlefield. Any soldier will tell you that if you get shot in the gut, even if it's not immediately fatal, you're out of the game. That's it. You're done. You get shot in the leg, you're done.

I don't buy that, and amusingly enough I have my own anecdotal evidence: I've heard plenty of horror stories from veterans in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that say otherwise about their opponents' ability to endure pain and continue fighting. Religious fanaticism and adrenaline can go a long way in ensuring that a wounded opponent keeps fighting.

And indeed, that's one of the problems that is causing debate over whether or not the military's current weaponry is truly sufficient, especially with the growing prevalence of body armor.

I'd agree that there are exceptions to the rule, but by and large if you get shot, you're out of the action.