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.

Not necessarily. Space is a vacuum - not a crushing force like the weight of the sea.

Yes. But surely a land raider is pressurised anyway. Nothing new needed.

It is a bit off topic I agree though.

Those arguing earth curvature would provide cover against defense weapons forget indirect fire. Sure you cannot fire laser or other energy weapons where the shot follows the line of sight. But projectiles follow the ballistic curve. Modern artillery has so long range they have to include the coriolis effect into targetting - meaning when the projectile reaches earth again, because of earth rotation and mass inertia the ground will have moved away under the shell. No problem to cover dozends of kilometers, no problem to hit over that distance, either, provided you do your math.
As my friend's IG russes, mortars and basiliks so skillfully demonstrate whenever I try to las-spam his tank fleet, the Imperium has the knowledge, the weapons and the math to provide indirect artillery fire.

But I suppose stealth might nevertheless be the reason to deploy wet naval units. Submersible units at least. If strategic goals demand the insertion of a secret operational base instead of the massive precision strike for example.
Simulate an orbital strike gone wrong, have one or more ships prepared to simulate wreckage and go down in blazing glory over ocean areas. When your landing crafts have submersed, deploy your underwater carriers and prepare an underwater operational basis elsewhere. Make sure you blew up everything that looked like your landing ships were not dysfunctional while falling from the sky, so that a mistrusting defender may find nothing suspect about the wreckage.
The fact that someone is discussing the question if you need a wet navy when you have orbiters, drop ships and atmospheric flyers that can deploy in space, this fact alone is reason to include oceanic warfare into your strategy. Because someone WILL have a blind spot there.

Curvature off the earth included. There isn't a AA weapon or artillery platform around that can target something deploying in the middle of the Atlantic.

I won't debate the logic of what your saying but the closer the minute your using AA and nopt orbitals to prevent drop ships in the middle of the ocean your out of luck.

Misread thread please delete or something xo

 Eetion wrote:
Also if it is a traditional engine I'm sure iv read that Promethium can burn underwater, I'm not sure and can't cite a source however, but if they can run in a vaccum it stands to reason that a O2 isn't a prerequisite for it to run.

Combustion isn't possible without an Oxident. Looks like this is another element of 40k law with no basis in reality. There's nothing wrong with that but IMO the Land Raider was already impressive enough before they said it could drive underwater.

I agree. But if something is described. We can only hypothesise how and why.

In this case the Oxidant could be contained within the chemical make up of promethium

ENOZONE wrote:When missiles start erupting from their depths, it may be difficult for an air force to reach its destination. How's that for grimdark lol?

Not even close to grimdark. The missiles are not powered by burning babies, nor does it take a virgin sacrifice to maintain the ship underwater. One thing about nukes and 40k, they're rarely seen (other than in the DKoK back-story) because they require a 10 megaton+ hit to breach a void shield.

nomotog wrote:You can't pressurize a fire port.

No, but bolters in general are of pretty limited use underwater. There's a reason that most of the time when there's an epic underwater battle with SM, it's usually one of the hand to hand chapters involved. Lascannons run into a similar problem, as water is a fantastic medium for dissipating energy, particularly heat and light.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eetion wrote:
I agree. But if something is described. We can only hypothesise how and why.

In this case the Oxidant could be contained within the chemical make up of promethium

No, that wouldn't work, it'd make promethium too unstable to use in flamers, etc, and flamers are specifically stated not to work in a vacuum. So how promethium works I have no idea.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

nomotog wrote:You can't pressurize a fire port.

No, but bolters in general are of pretty limited use underwater. There's a reason that most of the time when there's an epic underwater battle with SM, it's usually one of the hand to hand chapters involved. Lascannons run into a similar problem, as water is a fantastic medium for dissipating energy, particularly heat and light.

How many epic underwater battles with SMs are there? I can only think of that one SWs. If you know of any others, you should spill it.

nomotog wrote:

How many epic underwater battles with SMs are there? I can only think of that one SWs. If you know of any others, you should spill it.

Emperor's Children had one during the Crusade, IIRC. Another is mentioned in passing when the IoM made war against the Adranti.

Whew, this discussion still ongoing.

BaronIveagh wrote:No, the first thing to blow up was three drop pods. In typical GW what all follows them and how much was destroyed gets vague after that, but the SM are forced back to three strike cruisers.

The only thing I find "vague" here is your extrapolation.
The strike cruisers launched drop pods, and some of them got shot down. That's it. The cruisers are not part of the "attack wave" since they are the basis from which said wave was launched. And the Thunderhawks you mentioned are only referred to as part of a later assault, too, mentioned to launch after the AA fell silent.

It really pays to double-check everything people state on these forums.

By the way, you don't happen to have a citation for what you suggested the Codex Citystrike would say?

BaronIveagh wrote:However, strike cruisers do not approach the planet close enough for teleport deployments and orbital bombardment until after the AA defense net is silenced. This suggests that either these were the dumbest space marines in history, or the ground fire represented a real threat to the ships.

It represented "a real threat" to the drop pods they had launched, as evidently they got downed. Deployment range for orbital bombardment and troop deployment is actually equal. The text makes it fairly clear that the attacking Astartes underestimated the defence potential of this world, however. The Inquisitor then points out that these unexpected guns were a trap laid by the CSMs, and I'm going to assume the command code that ultimately silenced them was some sort of power grid shutdown sequence for the facilities that housed these emplacements.

With better recon, I assume the Marines would have simply selected a different deployment site a couple kilometers outside the hive (because hive =/= hive world), or, more likely, would have spent half an hour or so shelling the LZ before sending their pods down.

BaronIveagh wrote:One has to wonder how drop pods turn around, given how they're fired at a planet.

They don't. At least the text does not suggest they did. It mentions they came under heavy fire, but since the book only talks of three pods exploding I suppose the rest managed to land, with the Brother Marines they were carrying now having to fight under-strength. The Space Marines were forced to re-think their strategy, as the text puts it, simply because they could not afford to lose three or more pods with every wave, which would have happened if they just kept launching. Does that now make better sense to you?

BaronIveagh wrote:The problem is making sure it's on the beach they use. It's not something you can just pick up and move. It's range is around 60,000km, as it's the same a defense lance in bfg.

So you're saying this turret (which I kinda doubt will be very prevalent on Imperial worlds) is somehow able to cover each and every spot on land, but does not extend to oceans?

Nah, guess we'll just have to disagree on the capabilities and distribution of such defense platforms.

BaronIveagh wrote:The problem is you're assuming the weak point must be on land.

No, I'm assuming that certain areas on the land will offer just as good a spot as the oceans. With less hassle, less time, and less waste of (material) resources.

BaronIveagh wrote:Actually guided missiles are used by those IoM orbiting space ships. Please consult Battlefleet Gothic: Armada and FFG's Battlefleet Koronus.

I did not doubt the IoM would use guided missiles at all. They have these on the tabletop, too, after all.
What I was saying is they may not be as capable/accurate as you think, so that bombardment still requires a barrage rather than some single super-accurate tactical rocket like modern-day cruise missiles. And kilometer-long starships would surely have much bigger armouries to carry the necessary ammunition, rather than some hypothetical surface ship or sub that is able to launch a single wave and then needs to be rearmed.

Just a theory, of course. Like I said, I like to look for explanations for GW's writing rather than ripping it apart - at least most of the time I find it possible, although we certainly all draw our own lines.

I won't consider consulting FFG's books on the subject, though - I know they can deviate from GW's vision as much as any novel, so to me there is little point for me in mixing the two, at least not for such discussions. If you happen to believe in them, then fine, but then there is the possibility that we are simply operating on two different levels of fluff. We possibly do already, anyways, considering this debate.

Eetion wrote:Your missing the point. Iv said several times against Orbital emplacements. That the water navy would be of more use as command and control facilities. Both of the capabilities you mentioned require Orbit. If that is the case, any space vessel exposes itself to the entirety of the planets orbital defence network. If this is significant, moving away from orbit and using Command and Control planetside is more reliable after wet navy deployment, as it is landing in a more lightly defended area compared to any land deployment,.
Once a few Orbital defence problems can be taken out, the fleet can move into orbit and act with more freedom, and deploy more significant land assets

The ships of any invasion force have to enter low atmosphere anyways if they wish to deploy anything, be them bombs, ground forces or any of your precious hypothetical surface ships.
You suggest they fly into hell and hold orbit for long enough to put down a bunch of boats, and then just leave again until the coast is (literally) clear. I suggest they bring their ships into position and launch dropships together with an orbital strike against any defensive installations. Because once the heat is on and the hammer is coming down, a swift strike will be able to assert Imperial dominance within mere hours rather than some dragged-out campaign in which the Navy will be subjected to enemy fire without having the opportunity to bring its own voidshielded starship guns to bear.

I can only say again, if people feel a "need" for such a classic kind of warfare in their own interpretation of the fluff ... hell, go for it. Evidently, a number of novels already do. Just don't expect GW to follow suit.

 Lynata wrote:

It really pays to double-check everything people state on these forums.

By the way, you don't happen to have a citation for what you suggested the Codex Citystrike would say?

I'd have to dig it out, Cities of Death(not Citystrike) is already in a box waiting for the movers.

 Lynata wrote:
It represented "a real threat" to the drop pods they had launched, as evidently they got downed. Deployment range for orbital bombardment and troop deployment is actually equal. The text makes it fairly clear that the attacking Astartes underestimated the defence potential of this world, however. The Inquisitor then points out that these unexpected guns were a trap laid by the CSMs, and I'm going to assume the command code that ultimately silenced them was some sort of power grid shutdown sequence for the facilities that housed these emplacements.

Orbital strike and drop pod range are not equal. Drop pods can be launched from high orbit. Orbital bombardment has to be done from low orbit (Battlefleet Koronus pg 133, also BFG, but I'd have to unpack it to cite it for you).

It sounds a lot like they sent a deactivation signal rather than cut the power. 'Within the hour the automated defenses swiveled downwards and fell silent, their machine spirits coerced into submission by the Mechanicus priest's deft signals."

 Lynata wrote:

With better recon, I assume the Marines would have simply selected a different deployment site a couple kilometers outside the hive (because hive =/= hive world), or, more likely, would have spent half an hour or so shelling the LZ before sending their pods down.

Let me ask something: how far away do you think low orbit is? On Earth it's 2000 km. A hive is typically five to ten km high. Landing five km away from it is probably not going to do much. I'm going to state that orbital bombardment will take a significantly longer time that a half hour. (Mostly because it takes a given orbital bombardment weapon a half hour to reload, but also because all three strike cruisers were loaded with lances, which actually hit a very small area.)

 Lynata wrote:

They don't. At least the text does not suggest they did. It mentions they came under heavy fire, but since the book only talks of three pods exploding I suppose the rest managed to land, with the Brother Marines they were carrying now having to fight under-strength. The Space Marines were forced to re-think their strategy, as the text puts it, simply because they could not afford to lose three or more pods with every wave, which would have happened if they just kept launching. Does that now make better sense to you?

Not in the least, as it states that the first drop pods to reach ground didn't do so until after the AA guns were deactivated. This does imply that no one made is down before this point.

 Lynata wrote:
So you're saying this turret (which I kinda doubt will be very prevalent on Imperial worlds) is somehow able to cover each and every spot on land, but does not extend to oceans?

Wrong, and also: wtf? No, what it reaches out to is the limit of the horizon. (Since you can't shoot through the planet.) Since they're land based fixed positions, if there's good coverage from them, the most likely blind spots would be over any sizable body of water.

 Lynata wrote:
No, I'm assuming that certain areas on the land will offer just as good a spot as the oceans. With less hassle, less time, and less waste of (material) resources.

That would be entirely dependent on terrain. On geologically 'young' worlds, you're right. On 'old' worlds, no, it wouldn't. On 'Ocean' worlds, absolutely not.

 Lynata wrote:
I did not doubt the IoM would use guided missiles at all. They have these on the tabletop, too, after all.
What I was saying is they may not be as capable/accurate as you think, so that bombardment still requires a barrage rather than some single super-accurate tactical rocket like modern-day cruise missiles. And kilometer-long starships would surely have much bigger armouries to carry the necessary ammunition, rather than some hypothetical surface ship or sub that is able to launch a single wave and then needs to be rearmed.

... No, because Deathstrike missiles were launched from Helsreach as close support for defenders at Hive Volcanus during the Third Armageddon War. It doesn't say they wiped out the defenders doing this, so that's pretty good accuracy. They only scatter about 20 yards at scale, IIRC, in game. Pretty good for something that can be loaded with a vortex weapon to obliterate a few km of city. In Storm of Iron, a planetary defense torpedo is used as an ICBM and hits a target a few hundred yards wide. According to the description of how torps work in BFG, Imperial torps are highly accurate seekers, but have short sensor range. They can only really 'home' on a target they're within a few thousand km of, as opposed to Eldar and Tau, which will chase you from across the damn map. This is why they hit when in base contact. The base of the ship representing the limits of both 'dumb' torp sensors and range of a ships defensive turrets.

not that the Imperium doesn't also have much fancier seeking torps, but they're rare.

And, actually, a destroyer has, to scale, an armory about the same size as the one on a real world fleet carrier. Someone over on FFG's site worked it out based on the volume of an Iconoclast vs the volume of a Ford class.

 Lynata wrote:

I won't consider consulting FFG's books on the subject, though - I know they can deviate from GW's vision as much as any novel, so to me there is little point for me in mixing the two, at least not for such discussions. If you happen to believe in them, then fine, but then there is the possibility that we are simply operating on two different levels of fluff. We possibly do already, anyways, considering this debate.

FFG is under tighter scrutiny than BL is. I'd take their stuff slightly after GWs and before BL.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
If I remember, Land Raiders are also supposed be amphibious, too.

Land raiders aren't just amphibious, they can go underwater too!!!