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.

ZOMFG.

Dammit.

I have to throw out all my Guard motorbikes and now mount them on Segues!!

 Haighus wrote:
I think the relevance of Sammael's "last jetbike" is that it is the last military-grade jetbike in Imperial service outside the Custodes. It seems that heavy duty grav is the rare stuff, so once you start slapping armour on something, you can't find sufficiently powerful grav engines.

Lots of more advanced Imperial worlds make widespread use of light grav vehicles- after all, a servo skull is basically the same thing. Grav technology is not totally lost to the IoM. But it would seem these light vehicles are not suited to war.

There are also the suspensor units marines will add to their weapons that negate some of the weight through anti-grav tech.

I don't mean to contradict you, its sort of the settings own hypocrisy, but a great number of the aircraft, drop pods, and large scale landers make use of some anti-grav tech to lighten their load. Less effective mass also means ease of maneuverability. Everyone questions how some of the marine flyers can even fly, but if you can cancel out gravity you never drop and can easily out accelerate drag forces and fly like the best aerodynamically designed aircraft.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I think the relevance of Sammael's "last jetbike" is that it is the last military-grade jetbike in Imperial service outside the Custodes. It seems that heavy duty grav is the rare stuff, so once you start slapping armour on something, you can't find sufficiently powerful grav engines.

Lots of more advanced Imperial worlds make widespread use of light grav vehicles- after all, a servo skull is basically the same thing. Grav technology is not totally lost to the IoM. But it would seem these light vehicles are not suited to war.

There are also the suspensor units marines will add to their weapons that negate some of the weight through anti-grav tech.

I don't mean to contradict you, its sort of the settings own hypocrisy, but a great number of the aircraft, drop pods, and large scale landers make use of some anti-grav tech to lighten their load. Less effective mass also means ease of maneuverability. Everyone questions how some of the marine flyers can even fly, but if you can cancel out gravity you never drop and can easily out accelerate drag forces and fly like the best aerodynamically designed aircraft.

Oh yeah, grav tech is absolutely everywhere in some form- Imperial Navy pilots wear flight suits with inertial dampners for example, to allow them to do exactly what you suggest.

But I think there is a distinction between lightening something here and there or floating a servo skull, and something heavy duty kept aloft by pure anti-grav like a Space Marine Land Speeder or jetbike.

In answer to OP:

Dude, have you SEEN THEIR RULE 34 PAGE? Go look it up right now.

w1zard wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

w1zard wrote:


A bike with solid construction doesn't die or buck its rider after it gets shot either...

They are also much easier to maintain and keep operating.

If the shot jams the front wheel whole.moving at speed, or shears the front forks, then yes the bike could also buck the rider when shot.

Notice I said, a bike of "solid construction".

Such a bike would be built in a way that nothing short of an anti-materiel round would jam the front wheel or shear the front forks.

I find the argument for cyber horses much more compelling, but a motorcycle is more low tech and easier to both construct and maintain than a cyber-horse would be. Arguably still more durable too. Fleshy bits are always inferior to metal, even cybernetically enhanced fleshy bits.

But if your world.has a cyber horse factory and an economy based on cyber horses, maybe they would be easier to build and maintain compared to.this.weird thing on wheels that relies on constantly exploding fuel.packages in a weird mechanical.heart thing with whirry things attached Magic space technology is magic and inconsistent

 Mmmpi wrote:
You flat out said anti-material rifles. Those are still light AT weapons.

I said that if the bike was of solid construction, the only think that could jam the front wheel or shear the front fork would be a round from an anti-material rifle. Please look back at the conversation. I was not saying that you could make a motorcycle immune to anti-materiel rounds, merely resistant to small arms fire.

 Mmmpi wrote:
It's not possible to make a motorcycle that can take that punishment and still retain full maneuverability or fuel economy.

Against non-AP small arms rounds? It is absolutely possible. We can make WINDOWS bullet resistant.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying "No motorcycles". I'm saying "Not only motorcycles".

And I am saying that having horse rough riders is pointless. A military motorcycle can do everything a horse can, except better, and it fits better with the background lore. If we do get rough rider models they should be riding motorcycles, not horses.

 Hawky wrote:
Imagine being stranded in the middle of the Amazon rainforest / Siberia / wherever, away from all civilization and no means of communication. Would you rather take a bike or a horse, in order to get back?

Bike. If the terrain is so bad that I cannot use a motorcycle, it is certainly bad enough that I cannot ride a horse. In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.

The problem here is that when I say "motorcycle" people have this image in their heads of civilian road motorcycles like Harley Davidsons that are purposely built to be loud as hell, and only good on flat paved roads. They should look up military motorbikes and offroad cycles and enlighten themselves.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
You flat out said anti-material rifles. Those are still light AT weapons.

I said that if the bike was of solid construction, the only think that could jam the front wheel or shear the front fork would be a round from an anti-material rifle. Please look back at the conversation. I was not saying that you could make a motorcycle immune to anti-materiel rounds, merely resistant to small arms fire.

 Mmmpi wrote:
It's not possible to make a motorcycle that can take that punishment and still retain full maneuverability or fuel economy.

Against non-AP small arms rounds? It is absolutely possible. We can make WINDOWS bullet resistant.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying "No motorcycles". I'm saying "Not only motorcycles".

And I am saying that having horse rough riders is pointless. A military motorcycle can do everything a horse can, except better, and it fits better with the background lore. If we do get rough rider models they should be riding motorcycles, not horses.

 Hawky wrote:
Imagine being stranded in the middle of the Amazon rainforest / Siberia / wherever, away from all civilization and no means of communication. Would you rather take a bike or a horse, in order to get back?

Bike. If the terrain is so bad that I cannot use a motorcycle, it is certainly bad enough that I cannot ride a horse. In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.

Just a point of contention here. I fully support bike Rough Riders as they fit my lore better. But saying horses don't fit canon is flat wrong or at least mistaken only motorcycles make sense. Because in this galaxy of billions of planets of all sorts techno and other types of barbarians is a thing. And for ease of training these a horse makes more sense as they would have a background with that and all they would have to learn is either combat <which they would have some experience of anyways> or to point an pull a trigger.

 Drakka77 wrote:
Just a point of contention here. I fully support bike Rough Riders as they fit my lore better. But saying horses don't fit canon is flat wrong or at least mistaken only motorcycles make sense. Because in this galaxy of billions of planets of all sorts techno and other types of barbarians is a thing. And for ease of training these a horse makes more sense as they would have a background with that and all they would have to learn is either combat <which they would have some experience of anyways> or to point an pull a trigger.

I mean sure, yeah, a horse would probably be easier to obtain on a backwater world. That doesn't mean they are any less outdated on a modern battlefield. I'm sure a metal sword (of the non power weapon variety) is easier to obtain than a lasgun on a backwater world, but I fail to see why we should be pushing for IG miniatures armed entirely with swords.

Various BL libraries have examples of civilian anti grav cars and transports. I believe the first one I read personally were on of the Eisenhorn books. It's clear though that adabting that to be durable enough to withstand battlefield conditions is both rare and very labor intensive.

Even Space Marine chapters can only field a limited number of speeders and it's noted that they are among the hardest things to keep in service and training pilots for them requires a lot of dedication. IG need something much simpler than that given the scale of their organization. Doesn't get much simpler than oldest example of a military animal.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
You flat out said anti-material rifles. Those are still light AT weapons.

I said that if the bike was of solid construction, the only think that could jam the front wheel or shear the front fork would be a round from an anti-material rifle. Please look back at the conversation. I was not saying that you could make a motorcycle immune to anti-materiel rounds, merely resistant to small arms fire.

 Mmmpi wrote:
It's not possible to make a motorcycle that can take that punishment and still retain full maneuverability or fuel economy.

Against non-AP small arms rounds? It is absolutely possible. We can make WINDOWS bullet resistant.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying "No motorcycles". I'm saying "Not only motorcycles".

And I am saying that having horse rough riders is pointless. A military motorcycle can do everything a horse can, except better, and it fits better with the background lore. If we do get rough rider models they should be riding motorcycles, not horses.

 Hawky wrote:
Imagine being stranded in the middle of the Amazon rainforest / Siberia / wherever, away from all civilization and no means of communication. Would you rather take a bike or a horse, in order to get back?

Bike. If the terrain is so bad that I cannot use a motorcycle, it is certainly bad enough that I cannot ride a horse. In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.

The problem here is that when I say "motorcycle" people have this image in their heads of civilian road motorcycles like Harley Davidsons that are purposely built to be loud as hell, and only good on flat paved roads. They should look up military motorbikes and offroad cycles and enlighten themselves.

#1. We already have bikes like that in game. Space marines ride them. Why do you think they get +1 toughness and an extra wound?
#2. Which is why I said against .50 and 20mm. If you're going to complain about me not reading your posts, you could do the courtesy and read mine.
#3. A motorcycle can't steer itself, help keep watch, or be a food source. They also make poor companions compared to a horse, which are usually as smart as dogs. And there are lots of places horses do better than motorcycles. Swamps for instance, and mountains.
#4. I'd rather have the horse in the Amazon. Same with Russian winters. WWII, trucks broke down from the cold. Horses and men could keep working. Most Colonial era Russians weren't too worried about their horses dying on them from normal use in Siberia. What do you think pulled the vehicles there during the winter? Bears?

w1zard wrote:
In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.

If your horse is dead then so is the soldier riding the bike, so who cares if the bike itself survives. And, unlike the bike, the horse can be fed from local food supplies in many cases while the bike often requires hauling fuel. Which goes back to a classic quote: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. Don't be the amateur who focuses too much on what you can do on the battlefield and runs out of gas before you get there.

To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.

Both had massive horse shortages, and the Russians were buying as many as they could from places like Argentina. This is with the US handing them massive amounts of trucks and jeeps.

I loved the 1st Light Horse Brigade, I like guard. put them together....1st Mounted Brigade of the Astra Millitarium = wet dream for an Aussie.

Horses aren't going to be completely redundant for military use until humans are.

PONIES!

Horses have been used throughout military history, and the IG/AM often use past armies as inspiration. If a current army has horses, the odds are military governor will go out of his way to get some for his version.

 Skinnereal wrote:
PONIES!.

Now I want to see some Ratling Riders!

Tiennos wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
PONIES!.

Now I want to see some Ratling Riders!

Guess what I'm going to do :
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2052977442/halflings-and-fantasy-friends/

Tiennos wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
PONIES!.

Now I want to see some Ratling Riders!

But who would be riding on the Ratlings?

 Dysartes wrote:

Tiennos wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
PONIES!.

Now I want to see some Ratling Riders!

But who would be riding on the Ratlings?

Micelings, I guess.

Redwall IG?

 Dysartes wrote:

Tiennos wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
PONIES!.

Now I want to see some Ratling Riders!

But who would be riding on the Ratlings?

This juxtaposed image makes me think of what GW intended for the Demiurge when they drew up them up as a re-conceptualization of the space dwarf in 40k... The squats had exo-armor, and GW were going to make a more advance exo-armor (along with drones) the centerpiece for that army... The concept was rolled into the Tau and became their crisis suits. So had space dwarfs been brought back to 40k they'd 15 feet tall and flying around in these over-sized and zippy armors.

Dandelion wrote:
To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.

And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.

In any environment where supplies aren't an issue, the motorbike is purely superior to the horse in every respect. The only time I could see you making an argument for horses over motorbikes is when fuel and spare parts are scarce, AND foodstuffs + clean water are abundant.

The bayonet charge was used often during the civil war too, that doesn't mean that the tactic wasn't beginning to be outdated either.

nareik wrote:
Horses aren't going to be completely redundant for military use until humans are.

It happened in WW2 buddy. Technically WW1, but the death throes ended in WW2.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.

And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.

Horses break down less than trucks do, and do better in rough terrain.

In any environment where supplies aren't an issue, the motorbike is purely superior to the horse in every respect. The only time I could see you making an argument for horses over motorbikes is when fuel and spare parts are scarce, AND foodstuffs + clean water are abundant.

Can you eat a motorcycle? How well do they handle broken terrain? Because horses are actually fairly good there compared to bikes. How about stairs? Horses can climb those. They have more room for cargo too. Why do police use horses to patrol urban areas?

The bayonet charge was used often during the civil war too, that doesn't mean that the tactic wasn't beginning to be outdated either.

nareik wrote:
Horses aren't going to be completely redundant for military use until humans are.

It happened in WW2 buddy. Technically WW1, but the death throes ended in WW2.

Last bayonet charge was in 2004, and it worked very well. The US army has used Tomahawks (the axe) in iraq and Afghanistan successfully as well. The last lancer cavalry charge was in 2008 (not all riders had lances, and they all had assault rifles). That charge was successful, despite the defenders having trenches and T-55's. While not a common occurrence, they do still succeed under the right conditions.

What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...

Cavalry is much more mobile than infantry tactically, but not strategically. Moving 500 infantry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men. Moving 500 cavalry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men, and probably 1200-1500 horses. Very rarely was a highly trained and very valuable combat mount also used for mundane transportation of either the rider or other resources. Plus there was always the desire to keep that horse fresh so it will still be effective once you make contact with the enemy.

I think both beasts and machines fit quite nicely into the 40K aesthetic, I'm just throwing out facts for consideration.

I like them for the same reason as many other people in this thread. I like 40k as a crazy space fantasy game full of anachronisms. I like seeing horses alongside grav tanks. I like humans bayonet charging aliens in mecha suits. I think it's fun and cool. Plus some nostalgia and desire for more modeling opportunities.

That said, I totally wouldn't mind if a new Rough Riders kit had the humans mounted on dirt bikes. That's cool too, and in terms of rules I don't see them needing to be distinct. A new Free Peoples cavalry unit for AoS that had some extra bits or cross-compatibility with IG kits would also be neat.

This thread has got me thinking about grox ranchers riding lobotomized grox with Krootox-style weapon mounts as Scout Sentinels in friendly games.

w1zard wrote:
In any environment where supplies aren't an issue

IOW, nowhere.

 amanita wrote:
Cavalry is much more mobile than infantry tactically, but not strategically. Moving 500 infantry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men. Moving 500 cavalry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men, and probably 1200-1500 horses. Very rarely was a highly trained and very valuable combat mount also used for mundane transportation of either the rider or other resources. Plus there was always the desire to keep that horse fresh so it will still be effective once you make contact with the enemy.

I think both beasts and machines fit quite nicely into the 40K aesthetic, I'm just throwing out facts for consideration.

It's actually worse than that for the horse. An army without cavalry can force march 30 miles a day. One with cavalry can only go 20 unless they leave their horses behind. Humans, long term, have more endurance. Usually though, the tactical speed is worth keeping the horses.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Cavalry is much more mobile than infantry tactically, but not strategically. Moving 500 infantry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men. Moving 500 cavalry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men, and probably 1200-1500 horses. Very rarely was a highly trained and very valuable combat mount also used for mundane transportation of either the rider or other resources. Plus there was always the desire to keep that horse fresh so it will still be effective once you make contact with the enemy.

I think both beasts and machines fit quite nicely into the 40K aesthetic, I'm just throwing out facts for consideration.

It's actually worse than that for the horse. An army without cavalry can force march 30 miles a day. One with cavalry can only go 20 unless they leave their horses behind. Humans, long term, have more endurance. Usually though, the tactical speed is worth keeping the horses.

One with cavalry can go more than 20 miles a day, but they need an excessive number of horses per soldier (something like 5 minimum per rider). This is how the Mongols achieved their remarkable strategic mobility- they had huge numbers of horses, so could keep them fairly fresh.

This has the obvious downside of needing colossal amounts of forage, which was the Mongols greatest weakness, and why they struggled so much against scorched-earth campaigns and in regions with poor pasture. It is also the chief reason the Mongols sucked at long sieges, and tried to take cities quickly- if they stayed in one place too long, they quickly exhausted the grass and had to spread out over a wide area. This made the army weak to a counter-attacking relief force.