Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Earth fighters are orders of magnitude faster.

No, they aren't.

I've given real world stats from aircraft made decades ago and compared them against the datacards presented to me from lexicanum. You've refuted with...nothing. You lose.

Earth fighters have stand off missiles.

So do IoM fighters.

An old school sparrow has an 80lb explosive charge so er yea now that you mention it.

Which is a weak explosive not actually designed to penetrate armor but instead to provide shrapnel that would destroy the fighter's basically nonexistent armor.

You brought up comparing them to a tank. Blame yourself.

I don't know if you've noticed (you have a tendency not to actually read posts you're responding to), but I was only responding to these posts concerning Imperium's aerospace power.

Yep I noticed, and I noticed that they are on par with Tau vehicles in combat effectiveness. So I guess you meant to say BOTH get pwoned by puny earthling fighters. Thanks!

Frazzled wrote:You've refuted with...nothing.

Read my posts instead of pulling lies out of wherever you just pulled that one.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You've refuted with...nothing.

Read my posts instead of pulling lies out of wherever you just pulled that one.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say my eyes aren't good, instead of replying to your insult. Now you did say they fight at mach 2. In case you're wondering mach 3 (as with the foxbat) is faster than mach 2. But I'm sure thats not the supposed factoid you're referring to.

Other than insults, what data do you submit that Tau fighters are faster than earth fighters. Lexicanum doesn't do it.

*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

Frazzled wrote:Now you did say they fight at mach 2

No, I said that's their optimal combat speed, they can go faster than that. And they do this WHILE being more heavily armed and armored.

The Lighting isn't the kind of vehicle annular blast fragmentation missiles are going to do much against, and its primary weapon is an autocannon designed specifically for long-ranged anti-air combat, as well as two lascannons and a series of homing missiles which themselves are easily capable of tearing a tank apart, nevermind a lightly armored aircraft.

The Thunderbolt, which would indeed be outperformed in terms of speed, has an even more impressive armament for anti-air purposes, having four of these autocannons as well as two lascannons and its missile complement.

Both of these commonly have well armored cockpits, various kinds of chaff/flare systems, various kinds of targeting systems, etc. Both of those also can take hunter-killer missiles as well, which have practically unlimited range and FAR smarter guidance systems than our own. Even a single one can take down a tank with ease, nevermind a fighter.

And that's only the Imperial Navy's most common fighter types, not getting into Astartes gunships, which have so much firepower and armor that they could take on several wings of modern fighters, destroy them all with ease and come back unscathed-- it'd take far more firepower to take one of these down than our air superiority fighters have on a standard mission.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now you did say they fight at mach 2

No, I said that's their optimal combat speed, they can go faster than that. And they do this WHILE being more heavily armed and armored.

The Lighting isn't the kind of vehicle annular blast fragmentation missiles are going to do much against, and its primary weapon is an autocannon designed specifically for long-ranged anti-air combat, as well as two lascannons and a series of homing missiles which themselves are easily capable of tearing a tank apart, nevermind a lightly armored aircraft.

The Thunderbolt, which would indeed be outperformed in terms of speed, has an even more impressive armament for anti-air purposes, having four of these autocannons as well as two lascannons and its missile complement.

Both of these commonly have well armored cockpits, various kinds of chaff/flare systems, various kinds of targeting systems, etc. Both of those also can take hunter-killer missiles as well, which have practically unlimited range and FAR smarter guidance systems than our own. Even a single one can take down a tank with ease, nevermind a fighter.

And that's only the Imperial Navy's most common fighter types, not getting into Astartes gunships, which have so much firepower and armor that they could take on several wings of modern fighters, destroy them all with ease and come back unscathed-- it'd take far more firepower to take one of these down than our air superiority fighters have on a standard mission.

Please quote your source, else you're just - again-blowing smoke out your ass.

Frazzled wrote:

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

The tau don't have coid shields. Some of their space ships have gravity shields, but that is not the same.

The thing is, the human jets you gave are only a tiny bit faster then tau jets. When you consider that the tau jets are bigger have stronger armor and carry drones. I don't think going a little faster will help.

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

The tau don't have coid shields. Some of their space ships have gravity shields, but that is not the same.

The thing is, the human jets you gave are only a tiny bit faster then tau jets. When you consider that the tau jets are bigger have stronger armor and carry drones. I don't think going a little faster will help.

Fair point, but mind, the ones with actual speeds noted are actual because they are not secrets. We do know that a Foxbat could hit mach 3.2 for short periods of time, and back in the day, the F15 was vaunted at top speed over mach 2. As these things have evolved signfiicantly, I'd proffer the top speeds are substantially higher. If the F-22's cruising speed is nearly mach 2 its combat speeds would be scads higher.

Again, respectfully, how do we know the tau jets have better armor? I'm not worrying about drones becuase they are, like, really slow...

Which is a nice suggestion, but you're the one trying to claim that we should cite sources... yet you are merely speculating yourself.

Frazzled wrote:Please quote your source, else you're just - again-blowing smoke out your ass.

The irony is killing me.

If you want a source, I recommend Aeronautica Imperialis. Imperial Armour has some bits, but Aeronautica Imperialis is SPECIFICALLY about this kind of thing.

Now cite your sources.

Oh wait you don't have any. You're just saying "I don't know what it is but I'm sure it's better".

Melissia wrote:Which is a nice suggestion, but you're the one trying to claim that we should cite sources... yet you are merely speculating yourself.

Frazzled wrote:Please quote your source, else you're just - again-blowing smoke out your ass.

The irony is killing me.

If you want a source, I recommend Aeronautica Imperialis. Imperial Armour has some bits, but Aeronautica Imperialis is SPECIFICALLY about this kind of thing.

So again YOU"VE CITED NOTHING. I'm very impressed.

The Soviet jet noted at the beginning the entire generation is Mach 2+

The old US aircraft had noted speeds nearly comparable to Mach 2. Is it reasonable to assume that they have blown past that 50 years later? To most people yea.
F-15 mach 2.5

http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Psienesis wrote:*cough*

Void Shields.

Your 11.M2 air-superiority fighters are rendered invalid. There is nothing we have available to defeat an energy shield that disintegrates matter. No missile, rocket, bullet or explosive shell we have can compete with that level of technology.

Also... plasma. Don't care what kind of armor you're toting, plasma renders it invalid. What we developed DPU-round firing chainguns for (tank/armor killing), the Tau built plasma weapons.

Tau plasma rifles are man-portable.

A 20mm autocannon is not.

A single Tau infantryman can take out an Abrams. If the plasma doesn't cook the tank's ammo or fuel off, it will almost certainly liquefy the men inside it, as we're talking about a ball of energy approaching the heat of a star striking what is, basically, a big metal box.

Now here's a better argument. Direct technology advantage.
1. What Tau vehicles have void shields?
2. Your plasma rifle context is a potentially valid one in direct shooting. Of course they have to be in range but thats a terrain/luck specific one.

The tau don't have coid shields. Some of their space ships have gravity shields, but that is not the same.

The thing is, the human jets you gave are only a tiny bit faster then tau jets. When you consider that the tau jets are bigger have stronger armor and carry drones. I don't think going a little faster will help.

Fair point, but mind, the ones with actual speeds noted are actual because they are not secrets. We do know that a Foxbat could hit mach 3.2 for short periods of time, and back in the day, the F15 was vaunted at top speed over mach 2. As these things have evolved signfiicantly, I'd proffer the top speeds are substantially higher. If the F-22's cruising speed is nearly mach 2 its combat speeds would be scads higher.

Again, respectfully, how do we know the tau jets have better armor? I'm not worrying about drones becuase they are, like, really slow...

I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?

With the exception of the A-10 and similar craft (Which are rare, and the USAAF hates them with a passion and is constantly looking for an excuse to get rid of them for something faster), Earth jets are taken out by what basically amounts to an oversized frag grenade.

I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?
***Now are these drones standard 40K gun drones? If so, then I'd disagree. If they are something else then I'll go with you. Earther jets are not armored outside of certain areas, plus with redundant systems, so they can be considered quite vulnerable.

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?
***Well the images I saw are not particularly aerodynamic but better than the flying bricks that pass for Imperium stuff. Its a good question on the turning as its not tied to speed. We don't know the climb rate without knowledge of the thrust force. they could be better or worse, just not enough info.

I for one welcome our new Tau overlords...

We would lose -badly

Of all of the 40k armies Tau have one of the most sensible styles. They won't needlessly waste their resources like the IoM. In a 100 v 100 fight they would be one of the best forces.

Their weapons are better than ours in every respect. Bolters fire small rockets that explode inside you and they are beaten by pulse weapons. The Tau do have rapid firing weapons. While the rules don't show it well pulse rifles and lasguns are both capable of automatic fire.

Their armour is much better- they have force fields

In a BL book a human fires a pulse rifle into a forest and it just blows through the trees leaving a large hole behind it. Any cover we get behind will be very quickly destroyed by tau weapons.

LMBT have better armour than anything we have, the materials are far superior, and railguns go through them easily.

Our aircraft are usually a strength when it comes to us vs 40k but the tau have some of the best aircraft and far better pilots. We would struggle to even penetrate their armour.

We do have nukes but the Tau could destroy our planet if they fired some of their most powerful weapons at it.

4M2A wrote:They won't needlessly waste their resources like the IoM.

The IoM suffers from a lot of what is termed flanderization. They don't waste resources anywhere NEAR as much as the internet makes them out to do.

TL: DR at the bottom, but I highly suggest reading this, as you won't get the nuances of the argument.


Looking over this thread, I just wanted to throw my two cents in:

1. Missiles as Artillery

There was a "missiles aren't considered artillery" argument perhaps a page back. I noticed everyone was getting really touchy over the definition of artillery and how missiles aren't artillery? I do know of one instance where they were certainly considered artillery. I believe the unit was called Stalin's organ. A truck mounted with a battery of tube launchers that fired what could be equated to missiles from great distances, and in a way that artillery fired normal, explosive shells. So it is quite possible that a missile could be considered artillery, it's just how one fields that missile.

2. Infantry

If this were just an infantry battle, meaning men versus weird fish things, I don't think there is any doubt that the Tau would clean house. Simply because on that individual level, their armor and weapons outclass ours by several leagues. The basic tau rifle, a plasma weapon, could actually destroy some of our heaviest armor given its nature, not being an impact weapon but one where heat is the main ingredient. The Abrams has a very neat system of ceramite armor that has been designed to stop rockets by causing them to blow up prematurely, before the sensitive underbelly is reached. This wouldn't effect plasma. It would also neutralize our heaviest personal armor. The highest form of personal defense I can think of that we deploy to our men is a system of interlocking ceramic plates (once again, sensing a trend) and due to the nature of tau rifles not being impact weapons but energy, would render them fairly useless.

So in a purely infantry battle the Tau would win. This, of course, is disregarding the training of one army versus the other. However, I feel that the training we receive as soldiers and the breeding that creates the Tau firewarrior caste roughly equal each other. Or, looking at it another way, the superiority of the infantry weaponry is so strikingly obvious, that all the tactics in the world wouldn't be able to effect the overall outcome.

3. Armored Support and the conversations related to them

Now if we start adding armor things get a bit more complex. If we're saying tanks and APC like units are the only things allowed, we're actually giving ourselves a bit of an advantage. Now, if we had said a generic term along the lines of "Heavy Support" then perhaps it would be a bit more equal. But none the less, let us talk about the Tau Hammerhead tank and the Abrams tank that people seem to like so much around here.

In terms of speed, I would say that the Hammerhead and Abrams would be about equal. The Hammerhead is a skimmer, and so terrain would have little effect on it. The Abrams is simply a monster, that uses the raw power of its engine to reach up to seventy miles an hour off road. I pulled that number from the ether, somebody check me on that. So it's difficult to say who would outrun who.

Defensive capabilities. The Abrams, we have discussed. It uses a defensive system that focuses on foiling impacts and explosions caused by those impacts. The Hammerhead obviously has a hardened outer armor, which in my opinion, would function much like our own Abrams defensive system. I infer this, as Melta weapons (meaning ones that use heat and energy), still have an increased effect on it. The only difference, and what I would consider an advantage, that the Hammerhead has is the disruption field. In this circumstance, it would essentially disable the Abrams targeting system or cause static...or some other effect to the same end, making it significantly harder to target and hit. This gives Tau the edge in defensive capabilities, in one man's personal opinion.

Offensive capabilities. The Abrams, as far as my small knowledge of it goes, has between a 105 and 120mm cannon. It can fire solid shot, explosive, incendiary, and even fragmentation rounds. It can also take fitted sabot rounds that have an increased armor piercing capability. It also have various mounted weapons such as a .50 caliber machine gun. Very impressive to say the least. The Hammerhead, and forgive me I am a bit fuzzy on this, has two choices. A burst shot, similar to a frag round, and a solid shot railgun-esque round as well as a burst cannon. In this circumstance, I would rate them about equally in terms of tank killing and anti infantry capabilities.

So using these three criteria, and I know I am oversimplifying, forgive me, the Hammerhead edges out the Abrams slightly by having the ability to reduce our tank's effectiveness in combat with its defensive abilities, in terms of armor versus armor. Now, I use this as an example because we could reasonably expect the back up of one tank for a group of about 100 infantry, perhaps more. But I certainly think the tau would bring roughly the same number.

I could go into the Bradley APC versus the Devilfish but I feel that would be superfluous. If someone would like to have that conversation, and hear my opinions on it, then quote this part of the argument and include your desires in the following post.

4. Aircraft

I know significantly less about our aircraft capabilities than our infantry and armor. So I would like you to take everything I say here with a grain of salt. I am of the opinion, that in this situation, most air support would be close air support. Meaning top speeds and dogfighting statistics would be...not irrelevant, but perhaps less important. I think that the A10 Warthog would be a suitable piece of equipment that you could expect for this kind of support in a small infantry skirmish (small, meant relatively). With a heavy Gatling gun mounted in the noise, it would be a serious danger to both infantry and vehicles, as far as explosive ordinance...I am drawing a blank, and will leave that to those more versed in this. But none the less, the aircraft is more heavily armored than normal aircraft to suit its particular role, which I believe is tank killing. Now if someone from the Tau side would like to show me an aircraft to match the stats of the A10, I'd be more than happy to talk on that subject more.

Suffice it to say, at this point, our close air support would provide some help, but depending on the terrain and scenario could easily be more or less helpful in the long run. I do believe that it would be a small contribution if any as I see this fight being short and brutal. The air support would have one run or so, and then would return to refit or refuel.

5. The exclusion of the Battle Suit

This I believe to be the one reason that the argument here has any sporting chance to it. The Tau are unable to access their battle suits, XV8 and Stealth specifically. Lets talk first about the stealth suit. Given its name, it has a stealth system, whether this is a sort of "Halo Elite Active Camo" or perhaps something that makes them invisible to heat these are the ones that would be the outriders of a small Tau force. The scouts, looking ahead without being looked at themselves. This would give the Tau some warning about our own combat efficiency, allowing them at least a heads up of what we have in store for them. Second, their offensive stats. They have a burst cannon, which as far as I know, is meant to shred infantry. It could be equated to a chain gun, but man portable and with perhaps a smaller calibre, but this is a bit of conjecture on my part. Either way, this could do some serious damage to the infantry elements of our forces. Add in the fact that they are capable of rapid movement, and you have a unit that could really cause serious damage for little in reciprocation (Jump, shoot, jump back into cover).

The XV8 suit is also something who's exclusion allows this match to be sporting. I would consider that the Tau would take a team of Crisis suits before they would take a hammerhead. You combine the incredibly fast movement of the Stealth Suit, with devastatingly heavier weapons, and you truly have a force to be reckoned with. I doubt an Abrams or its crew would have the speed and familiarity with the Tau to accurately take out a team of these suits.

I know this was outside the original parameters, but I believe it had to be said. As I haven't seen a Tau army list yet that doesn't include a crisis suit. Except for those 500 points armies, which are only about 12-40 infantry models, depending.

If anyone would like to speak on any one of these points, please quote them, and I would be happy to start a dialogue!

TL: DR: Please reconsidered reading the whole argument. It will help weed out those who are actually interested in this topic, and those that are simply trolls.

Interesting points gpfunk

*Please add artillery to your discussion point.

*Also if infantry on infantry only, what about earther heavy weapons being added to the mix.

We win..we win..A Modern Earth Army will always win over any 40k army.

Ok that was just for the fan boys because I know how it hurts there feelings to think there fav. 40k army could lose.

But the Tau are as close to one of our earth armys as you get in 40k, or so it seems to me.
In fact I kind of think if we could somehow get/make a ship that could get us to other worlds we would end up alot like the Tau.

Only we would do it better. But thats a story for another thread.

100vs100
The Tau unlike the IG do have better guns/armor then we do, and they do have good night fighting skills/equipment.<--That's Huge.
Tau Tanks do not have as much armor as a Russ, im thinking tank/vs tank= a wash for the most part.

Tau fires big uber space gun at Modern tank... modern tank gos boom.
Modern tank fires at Tau... Tau Tank may go boom, and it may not.
But...most armys today can bring a huge amount of anti armor to the field if need be in sort order.
So perhaps we have to fire more shots at a Tau tank but....well have more shots to fire.

The Tau Fire Warriors do not seem to put any type of heavy guns/support in there units, or even light MGs and I think its a huge weakness for them when fighting any army of our time line, and I think it kills them in game as well.
A grenade launcher gos along way, in and of its self. And they need some type of light MG support.

We all know Tau guns are better,and they will blow big wholes in our guys. STR-5 = dead trooper.
We have STR-3 Stub guns and the like, and those would do the trick good enough vs Tau.
But again the Tau have the range on us.
But there greater range will almost be for nothing as most fire fights even in the war take place are very close range.
I don't think the Tau can aim a gun any better then we can, so it would just come down to who saw the other guys first.

And armor.
The Tau have us hands down on armor. I think it would be a huge thing in there favor.
We might be able to to make up for it with our light/heavy support. But maybe not.

All in all id say in a 100vs100 match with all things being = they win. But id say we would put up a real good fight.

Melissia-It is over exagerated but it still happens. They will still risk their soldiers when it may be more effective in the long term to keep them alive- just because they are used to having enough men that it isn't a problem to loose a few hundred.

There are a lot of comments saying how much artillery / tanks we can put down but this is mean to be in an even fight. For every tank we put down they get one too. 1v1 a hammerhead will blow apart any of our vehicles.

Frazzled wrote:I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?
***Now are these drones standard 40K gun drones? If so, then I'd disagree. If they are something else then I'll go with you. Earther jets are not armored outside of certain areas, plus with redundant systems, so they can be considered quite vulnerable.

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?
***Well the images I saw are not particularly aerodynamic but better than the flying bricks that pass for Imperium stuff. Its a good question on the turning as its not tied to speed. We don't know the climb rate without knowledge of the thrust force. they could be better or worse, just not enough info.

They carry bust cannons so they are not normal drones. I kind of guess that they are meant to be detached and act as wing men, but they might be as slow as normal drones. and just having the ability to be swapped out mid flight by slowing down.

Tau jets are armored with something called "Nano-Crystalline alloy" sounds like good armor .

The lexicon says that the the Barracuda has more maneuverability then Thunderbolts. We can do something with that.

nomotog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am figuring that the drones on the jets are about as fast as the jets themselves. As to why I think the jets have better armor, well for one they are just plain bigger, that at the very least lets them absorb more damage before they are taken out. The next thing is just that earth jets don't have a lot of armor at all. Do they?
***Now are these drones standard 40K gun drones? If so, then I'd disagree. If they are something else then I'll go with you. Earther jets are not armored outside of certain areas, plus with redundant systems, so they can be considered quite vulnerable.

I am wondering who has better turning rate and clime rate. The tau craft are space worthy. Wouldn't that be an advantage?
***Well the images I saw are not particularly aerodynamic but better than the flying bricks that pass for Imperium stuff. Its a good question on the turning as its not tied to speed. We don't know the climb rate without knowledge of the thrust force. they could be better or worse, just not enough info.

They carry bust cannons so they are not normal drones. I kind of guess that they are meant to be detached and act as wing men, but they might be as slow as normal drones. and just having the ability to be swapped out mid flight by slowing down.

Tau jets are armored with something called "Nano-Crystalline alloy" sounds like good armor .

The lexicon says that the the Barracuda has more maneuverability then Thunderbolts. We can do something with that.

***drones being mini fighters: ok.
***I saw that. Now they are not particularly armored in EPIC (the fighters) but lets go with a minimum of some armor is better than no armor. I'm thinking that and potential more maneuverability means Tau have the edge in a furball or more survivability against AA /SAM missiles (depending on the size of the SAM).

Having said that, I am just not seeing how these guys take on earther fighters that can stand off and hit with missiles at range.

I would say that the tau have better close air support then we do. They have the abilty to call down missle strikes just like us, but they can also call down drones that can then call down Missie strikes.

Let me first say that, the last time I played table-top 40K, the Tau did not exist. At all. So I am, outside of general terms and descriptions, unfamiliar with the vehicles in their army. I am, though, familiar with enough of Tau technology (and tech in the 40K universe in general), to draw some conclusions.

I would assume every space-faring vessel has some kind of void shield. Even if it is not a class of shield that can at all stand up to the firepower of a combat vessel, it would need some sort of shield (or extremely thick armor) to pass through the various debris fields found out in space.

Our own, real-life, near-orbit is getting absolutely *clogged* with space-junk from the thousands of satellites, orbital vehicles, rockets, private experimental space vehicles and other things we keep throwing into orbit. This is why the space shuttle and such generally only have 10, 15 minute "launch windows"... that's when the overhead sky is clear of trash and satellites enough to not risk the thing flying into something and exploding.

The Tau, being a space-faring race, and masters of an empire spanning hundreds of worlds, would require some form of energy shield, or extremely thick armor, in order to travel at even sub-light speeds through the void of space, without having a tiny space-pebble tear right through the hull and vent them all into space. They're not going to use a warp-jump, for example, to travel from one of their worlds to its closest moon, they're going to fly it in real-space, with all of its attendant risks.

Thus, the Tau ship is going to need one or the other (or both). It is extremely unlikely that we have anything that can penetrate the hull of a vessel capable of sustaining an asteroid collision (even a small one). Thick armor, however, is more a hallmark of the Imperium than it is the tech-advanced Tau, who would almost certainly make use of energy shields, or perhaps even a highly-advanced "defense net" of plasma weapons to deflect/destroy inbound projectiles/objects. This would work against missiles and rockets as easily as it would asteroids and space-junk.

This, of course, is only regarding its space-capable craft. Even ones that are orbital (rather than inter-planetary) would require some sort of defense against space-junk. Air-superiority fighters of the Tau would probably lack a specific defense net, though they may have what we would call an ABM system (anti-ballistic missile), or a defense similar to the Phalanx anti-missile system, to defend it from incoming fire. It may do this through ECM/ECCM, jammers, drone-swarms, or any of a number of ways that aren't necessarily covered in the rulebooks, specifically, but may be assumed to be covered in the all-encompassing "armor save".

nomotog wrote:I would say that the tau have better close air support then we do. They have the abilty to call down missle strikes just like us, but they can also call down drones that can then call down Missie strikes.

I forgot about that in EPIC. I yield if other non nuclear assets are involved.

Now if we're talking company vs. company with no support, how do the heavy wepaons match as a mitigant to superior Tau handweapons?

Frazzled wrote:Interesting points gpfunk
*Please add artillery to your discussion point.

What more would you like me to add? That wasn't necessarily connected to the actually fight discussion. I could certainly add in more about different ways in which missiles have been considered artillery. Or perhaps I could add in some US artillery versus I don't know what the Tau equivalent would be. Probably the hammerhead again, given its 72" scale range.

Frazzled wrote:
*Also if infantry on infantry only, what about earther heavy weapons being added to the mix.

So, heavy weapons. We talking man portable? Or are we talking about two to three man jobs? I'll try to cover a little bit of both. In terms of man portable options, the most common ones, at least in terms of US troops are the M249 SAW and the M60 Squad Machine Gun. Then we can move on to launchers and the like.

Lets talk about the SAW first. I personally think that this weapon would be less than useful versus the Tau. The M249 has a high rate of fire, very good accuracy, lower recoil than guns in its class, but this is all coupled with the fact that it is firing smaller projectiles with less armor penetrating ability. The bullets would either bounce off most Tau armor or cause non-fatal wounds due to the diffusion of the force of the bullet.

Now, the M60 on the other hand I feel would be a threat to be reckoned with. This is a heavy, generally belt fed, high recoil, low ROF, high calibre machine gun. The increased caliber would lend to an easier negation of the Tau armor. This would be a palpable threat, if this weapon is able to be used at its full potential. Due to the high recoil, it is most effective if set up in a static position, either behind cover, or prone with the bipod up. If the M60 were allowed to fire indiscriminately with no fear of reprisal, then it would cause some damage. But given the effectiveness of the plasma as penetrating cover, I would say the gunner would be hard pressed to find a spot where it could safely fire.

I do not think that the heavy machine guns would tip the scale either way.

Now I don't know much about Tau heavy weapons but I know one is a rail rifle. I will assume for the sake of the argument, that it is a suped up plasma gun with higher penetration and greater chance of fatality. More on this thing later.

US "heavy" weapons. I would classify any sort of explosive launcher here. Meaning M203 underslung grenade launchers, LAW Anti Aircraft/Personnel Launchers, and Wire Guided of Heat seeking shoulder fired missiles. This could potentially change the outcome of the battle. Once again, my knowledge here is limited, so check my information and take it with your salt.

M203 Grenade launchers, I would consider them to be no different than the grenades in the 40k universe. Low strength, small blast, man portable. I believe this weapon would be less than effective in penetrating the armor of the tau, barring a square, dead center hit. The fragmentation from these rounds would, in all probability, be negated by the advanced armor the Tau possess. I won't say it is useless, but it won't be a game changer in terms of a power v power argument.

LAW Launchers and the like. These are point and shoot ordinance that allows a high degree of accuracy without sacrificing power or portability. These would certainly penetrate Tau armor, and would certainly cause them to duck their heads for a few moments, allowing time for you to maneuver or reload. These would be extremely effective, but vulnerable in that same breath. Any smart soldier will see and take these out. Though I do think they would be very effective.


I have to go for now, but will continue this later. Edited.

Frazzled wrote:

nomotog wrote:I would say that the tau have better close air support then we do. They have the abilty to call down missle strikes just like us, but they can also call down drones that can then call down Missie strikes.

I forgot about that in EPIC. I yield if other non nuclear assets are involved.

Now if we're talking company vs. company with no support, how do the heavy wepaons match as a mitigant to superior Tau handweapons?

It's still a hard battle. The tau lack a actual explosive grenade, but at the same time they can still use drones and their weapons are a lot better.That only matters so much though I mean kill someone and then vaporize someone there is not a whole lot of difference. I say humans might have the edge if they guerrilla warfare inside of a jungle.

Ok, two points.

Firstly, what happens in a game does not equal how the 40K universe pans out in the stories and literature. It's a very basic representational framework. Saying things like 'their tanks can only shoot all the guns if they stay still, ours can move and fire now!' is complete nonsense.

Secondly, when we have plasma weapons, grav tanks with railguns, smart drone technology and... oh, what's the use?

That will come down to a matter of defenses. If the Tau infantry body-armor presents a viable defense against Imperial bolt-guns, then our modern heavy weapons (including only the man-portable ones, like the .50-cal M2 and similar) are really not much of a threat.

gpfunk wrote:
Lets talk about the SAW first. I personally think that this weapon would be less than useful versus the Tau. The M249 has a high rate of fire, very good accuracy, lower recoil than guns in its class, but this is all coupled with the fact that it is firing smaller projectiles with less armor penetrating ability. The bullets would either bounce off most Tau armor or cause non-fatal wounds due to the diffusion of the force of the bullet.

Now, the M60 on the other hand I feel would be a threat to be reckoned with. This is a heavy, generally belt fed, high recoil, low ROF, high calibre machine gun. The increased caliber would lend to an easier negation of the Tau armor. This would be a palpable threat, if this weapon is able to be used at its full potential. Due to the high recoil, it is most effective if set up in a static position, either behind cover, or prone with the bipod up. If the M60 were allowed to fire indiscriminately with no fear of reprisal, then it would cause some damage. But given the effectiveness of the plasma as penetrating cover, I would say the gunner would be hard pressed to find a spot where it could safely fire.

Eh... the M249 fires a 5.56mm round, the M60 a 7.62mm round... neither of which is all that in the realm of 40k weapons. Again, unless the Tau are instantly killed by a boltgun with no hope of an armor save, then our main LMGs and GPMGs are not going to bring anything new to the field the Tau haven't faced before. Sure, a round might go through an eye-lens or other weak point of the armor, but in reality, these will be "lucky shots" rather than an expression of the weapon's power.