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.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Eetion wrote:
Because by flying into battle your still exposing to AA. They have no support, rearming facilities, if they fail first time your deployment is significantly harder.

But you're forgetting that all AA weapons can also be aimed laterally to become AW (anti-water) weapons as well. An air assault is no more exposed than a water based one.

By using a naval base of operations a more measured and cautious approach can be taken. Aircraft can re armed, provide aircover to any further troop ships coming in once a beach head is established. Its not a cross your fingers and hope situation.

And why not simply park the space-navy on the opposite side of the planet (or at least over the horizon?) From there it is no more vulnerable than a naval base of operations, and can resupply and refuel the air transports and attack craft as needed.

I just really struggle to think of a situation where water craft would be the most functional way of doing things. In almost every situation, an aircraft flying low over the surface fills exactly the same role, and is much more flexible. The only situation I can think of where water craft would be necessary would be assaults on underwater installations.

Well AW weapons would have to contend with significant guns back, armourand can take a good deal more damage rather than flimsy aircraft AS WELL as the aircraft in a supporting role, while front line formations rush to block any likely target as they don't really know where the beach head will come.

Thing is with orbit is that its really high up. Just over the horizen is fine for 1 orbital, but not the other 5 or 6 on the planets hemisphere. For example let's say the imperium invaded Earth
They land a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic,no AW weapon can touch it.
Howevee any orbiting vessel in station exposes itself to any orbital weapon across western Europe and eastern USA. It either takes the hits or withdraws and leaves the fighters and hopes.

Would be cool to see a battle taking under water!

But not that I know of. Aquamarines sound like as if they have fought underwater though.

 Kaldor wrote:

But you're forgetting that all AA weapons can also be aimed laterally to become AW (anti-water) weapons as well. An air assault is no more exposed than a water based one.

'Small' AA like Hydras, or Whirlwinds, sure. The stuff that would give water ships issues, not so much. Remember that a 'small' large 40k AA weapon requires a Warlord titan to move, and the really big ones can only move as part of an ordinatus, fi then.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Would be cool to see a battle taking under water!

But not that I know of. Aquamarines sound like as if they have fought underwater though.

The Space Wolves and the Tau mixed it up at the bottom of an Ocean. The Tau used specialized undersea power armour and submarines, the Space Wolves used Land Raiders and Terminator Armour.

"Planetary invasions are urgent, swift and terrible affairs, characterised by deafening noise, bone-shattering explosions and the stench of death. Thousands of reckless and battle-hungry warriors plunge downwards upon trails of flame and vapour like vengeful angels, pouring from the drop-craft and low-orbiting spaceships that darken the skies above. Megatonnes of ordnance hammer down around these skyborne warriors, their detonation so devastating that the skies themselves seem afire; red, black and blinding white like the fires of hell. Pillars of ghostly light probe the skies, their colonnades all but transforming the battlefield into some vast and surreal shrine to the gods of war. Their touch is certain death to any invader caught in their beams, and red-hot debris rains from the skies as batteries of anti-aircraft guns take their toll.

Below the chaotic skies lies a war-torn landscape chewed up and spat out by the incessant bombardments that precede the invasion. The surreal mudscape is punctuated only be the ruined shells of once-proud buildings and by inviolable strongholds that jut like tombstones from the tortured earth. The comparison is apt, for the doomed soldiers who defend these bastions of order from the storm of violence that threatens to consume them will emerge as corpses or not at all.

The wounded and dying are spread across the tracts of no-man's-land between these bleak monoliths. Thunderous explosions come from nowhere to tear apart whole platoons, numbing the senses of the survivors so that they stumble into the teeth of the enemy's guns. Above them, attack craft roar across the skies through lattices of ruby-red lasfire and rocket contrails, strafing any man who dares stray into the open before screaming off through the flak to the next warzone. Drop Pods and gigantic landers plummet from the heavens, shaking the ground with their impact before disgorging yet more men into the merciless meat grinder of a planetary assault."
- Introduction of Codex Planetstrike

At least in GW's vision of the setting, using naval ships seems to be something that the Imperium just doesn't do. It is left to us to theorise about the why's, although many potential explanations (limited use versus cargo space and crew requirements, planetary conditions, nature of defences) have already been given in this thread.

BaronIveagh wrote:'Small' AA like Hydras, or Whirlwinds, sure. The stuff that would give water ships issues, not so much. Remember that a 'small' large 40k AA weapon requires a Warlord titan to move, and the really big ones can only move as part of an ordinatus, fi then.

A couple things that spring to mind:
a) planetary invasions are almost always accompanied by orbital strikes and/or bombing runs (see above), as all the assets are already part of the assembled invasion force.
b) if by "water ships" you are referring to huge cruisers rather than landing craft, that may be true, but water displacement means that your bigass battleship won't be of much use for actually getting people to the beach. you will still need small and vulnerable landing craft.
c) for mobile AA, I'm pretty sure that anything capable of taking down this baby in the background can also take down a surface battleship.
d) a fleet in orbit hot-dropping infantry and vehicles onto a landing zone means the troops will be where they are meant to fight in a matter of hours. circumventing potential defences by landing them in a body of water many hundreds or thousands of miles away just gives the enemy more time to prepare and reposition their guns to greet the invader.

Eetion wrote:They land a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic,no AW weapon can touch it.
Howevee any orbiting vessel in station exposes itself to any orbital weapon across western Europe and eastern USA. It either takes the hits or withdraws and leaves the fighters and hopes.

I'm not sure I follow you here.
A starship in orbit over either Europe or the USA is exposing itself to long ranged weapons from both continents, but a starship coming down in the ocean beneath them can't be touched by either?

But let's assume you meant that perhaps they just would not be subjected to as much enemy AA fire. Whilst that would be true, ships of the Imperial Navy are commonly protected by powerful void shields, which quite often cannot be said for most defensive positions, even where a world would possess such armaments that would reach up into the orbit and have the potential to destroy a star cruiser. Also, as per the Battlefleet Gothic rules, planetary anti-ship weapons are assumed to normally have a 90° firing cone, as they are concealed in underground silos for a certain degree of protection from enemy bombardment. So either the defender will lose its weapons to preliminary bombardment or, if he saw fit to protect it, it will not be of much use in aiming at the rapidly descending drop craft and gigantic landers. Naturally, there will still be losses incurred by resisting bastions and emplacements that have somehow escaped the orbital punishment and bomber runs, yet it seems that such hardship would not incur sufficient losses or defeats as to make the Imperium reconsider its tactics.

 Lynata wrote:

At least in GW's vision of the setting, using naval ships seems to be something that the Imperium just doesn't do. It is left to us to theorise about the why's, although many potential explanations (limited use versus cargo space and crew requirements, planetary conditions, nature of defences) have already been given in this thread.

Climbing to a better vantage point, or wearing helmets is also something the Imperium just doesn't do on the table top. I'll just point out that, at least in fluff, IG has water navy at the very least up to the size of a coast guard gutter (Apparently used by the Vostroyans) and battleship sized behemoths that sound like they mount titan weapons.

 Lynata wrote:

c) for mobile AA, I'm pretty sure that anything capable of taking down this baby in the background can also take down a surface battleship.

LOL. Um, yeah, Lynata, about that... in fluff they die to hits from a single ork with a rokkit launcher. They get shot down by Hydras. They get shot down by gargoyles. Gretchen have disabled them. (It sucks to be IG)

 Lynata wrote:

I'm not sure I follow you here.
A starship in orbit over either Europe or the USA is exposing itself to long ranged weapons from both continents, but a starship coming down in the ocean beneath them can't be touched by either?

But let's assume you meant that perhaps they just would not be subjected to as much enemy AA fire. Whilst that would be true, ships of the Imperial Navy are commonly protected by powerful void shields, which quite often cannot be said for most defensive positions, even where a world would possess such armaments that would reach up into the orbit and have the potential to destroy a star cruiser. Also, as per the Battlefleet Gothic rules, planetary anti-ship weapons are assumed to normally have a 90° firing cone, as they are concealed in underground silos for a certain degree of protection from enemy bombardment. So either the defender will lose its weapons to preliminary bombardment or, if he saw fit to protect it, it will not be of much use in aiming at the rapidly descending drop craft and gigantic landers. Naturally, there will still be losses incurred by resisting bastions and emplacements that have somehow escaped the orbital punishment and bomber runs, yet it seems that such hardship would not incur sufficient losses or defeats as to make the Imperium reconsider its tactics.

Ok, one sec: torpedoes would be quite effective against an LZ, they used them as ICBMs in one of the Iron Warriors novels. Macrobatteries, you have a point, but lances have been retconned and are now turrets with void shields capable of killing titans. (They're an unlimited range str D weapon according to the apocalypse sheet).

What he's driving at is that large oceans allow you to use the curvature of the planet against the defenders. Once below the emplacements horizon, you're in the clear, unless all the ground emplacements have seeking torps. However, GW likes ot launch human wave assaults at dug in positions, even when landing from space. Using strategy or tactics is not grimdark.

That's it of course cruisers can be shot at with orbitals in both cases, with navy the cruiser can withdraw in face of heavy orbital fire. If its having to maintain station to collect a wing of Thunderbolts it can't.

By deploying a wet navy in a relatively safe drop compared to planetside, they deploy the following.

:- Command and Control facilities
MObile Airfield and cover
A couple of Guard regiments,
Heavy Artillery
Capacity to attack from anywhere along that body of water.
AA facilities.

Its not a massively useful situation, but faced with a plane with significant orbital defences, it would be the safest option.

As for that fluff snippet from planet strilke. That all describes the experience for troops on the ground. Not the only method of performing a landing.

BaronIveagh wrote:Climbing to a better vantage point, or wearing helmets is also something the Imperium just doesn't do on the table top. I'll just point out that, at least in fluff, IG has water navy at the very least up to the size of a coast guard gutter (Apparently used by the Vostroyans) and battleship sized behemoths that sound like they mount titan weapons.

We are talking about the fluff here, hence I delivered fluff quotes, no? The fluff you are referring to, however, is apparently not GW's. It was already pointed out that some isolated sources may very well depict just about anything, from IG water navy to Space Marines going into battle with multilasers - it all depends on where you are looking, and if you prefer such interpretations you are free to follow them. Doesn't change that GW's books ignore them.

So basically, what are we talking about here? Are we discussing how GW handles it in their vision, or are we discussing some random novel?

BaronIveagh wrote:LOL. Um, yeah, Lynata, about that... in fluff they die to hits from a single ork with a rokkit launcher. They get shot down by Hydras. They get shot down by gargoyles. Gretchen have disabled them. (It sucks to be IG)

What fluff was that, exactly?
I'm gonna call BS on whatever book suggested Imperial Navy starships can be shot down by a handheld rocket launcher.

BaronIveagh wrote:Ok, one sec: torpedoes would be quite effective against an LZ, they used them as ICBMs in one of the Iron Warriors novels.

Even if we'd go by this one novel, there is no reason these ICBMs could not be launched from orbit, is there?
In fact, that would be far more efficient to do, since ICBMs transit the lower atmosphere during their ballistic flightpath anyways. Again: Why drop down something to do stuff you can just do directly from orbit? Just seems like a huge waste of time and resources, especially since (a) surface water ships are limited in operational range and (b) are not even an option on worlds that lack suitable bodies of water.

BaronIveagh wrote:Macrobatteries, you have a point, but lances have been retconned and are now turrets with void shields capable of killing titans. (They're an unlimited range str D weapon according to the apocalypse sheet).

That does not change much, actually. If the weapon is exposed for a greater firing arc, it will be subject to bombardment. If it is concealed below ground, its targeting will be limited. Both are valid options for defense platforms, but naturally you cannot have an underground weapon with a 360° firing arc. There will always be some drawback.

Also, a turret capable of killing titans (whose range would surely become limited as soon as we move away from tabletop rules) targeting dropships landing on a beach, would just as well be capable of targeting water ships landing on the same beach.

And why are we assuming that a planet has such impressive defenses everywhere and the entire world is riddled with cannons and turrets, anyways? Not even Cadia is that well defended. There will always be weak zones, as the defenders concentrate in fortresses and bunkers. If the defenses around the actual target area are judged to be too strong for a direct assault, the Imperial Guard will simply deploy in safe distance and then creep forward with trench warfare.
To bring us back to the hypothetical invasion of Earth discussed earlier ... even if our world would possess such impressive arsenal, the invader would simply deploy their forces in, say, the Russian Tundra or the Nevada Desert. Because there's jack gak defending those remote places.
Likewise, even if we were to assume that a world would have such defenses installed everywhere, they would logically exist on the beaches as well, and by assuming that the invader has no longer ranged weapons than the defender, all you do is achieve a stalemate.

Again, if the weak spot in an enemy's defenses are his beaches, then you can just as well have the usual drop ships land there rather than first deploying huge water ships, who then deploy smaller landing craft. Even if we were to assume that this would actually result in greater losses, it would be compensated by the fact that neglecting a mobile surface navy means you did not waste any resources (material and manpower) on silly ships that can only be used on a handful of areas on a handful of planets in the sector, rather than the Imperial Navy's capability to deploy anywhere directly, with waves upon waves of small drop ships and giant landers accompanied by orbital bombardment and fighter cover.

BaronIveagh wrote:What he's driving at is that large oceans allow you to use the curvature of the planet against the defenders. Once below the emplacements horizon, you're in the clear, unless all the ground emplacements have seeking torps. However, GW likes ot launch human wave assaults at dug in positions, even when landing from space. Using strategy or tactics is not grimdark.

A more important part of the grimdark is actually the loss of technology. I would presume that guided missiles in 40k aren't as reliable as you seem to assume, be it due to the abysmal state of science in the IoM or because of jamming. Else we would see this being used by the orbiting spaceships - or against those hypothetical water ships, no?

Eetion wrote:As for that fluff snippet from planet strilke. That all describes the experience for troops on the ground. Not the only method of performing a landing.

It describes the default planetary invasion and establishes the maxim that the Imperium seeks to perform such landings as quickly as possible. Deploying thousands of kilometers away on a body of water would thus be counter-productive, if they can just as well deploy hundreds of kilometers away in a safe area on land.

"A planetary invasion is a desperate battle for supremacy where ground taken is more important than lives lost and the invaders rain down their forces directly upon the defence networks of the foe."

As per your list, CnC facilities as well as the "mobile airfield" and the capacity to attack from anywhere (and not just along that body of water) already exist on the starships orbiting the planet and your heavy artillery + AA will be limited by only being able to move on deep-enough sea. Furthermore, some Imperial Navy starships are even equipped with the necessary facilities to drop pre-fabricated bastions directly into the battlefield, or project cones of anti-gravity to allow individual troop deployment directly onto the battlefield (it's like paratroopers without chutes! ).

The setting is (in GW's books) just written in this particular way, and given the descriptions on the Imperial Guard and the Imperial Navy as well as past military campaigns, I do not find this too hard to swallow. There are other things in the fluff that have me scratch my head, but not this topic.

 Lynata wrote:
We are talking about the fluff here, hence I delivered fluff quotes, no? The fluff you are referring to, however, is apparently not GW's. It was already pointed out that some isolated sources may very well depict just about anything, from IG water navy to Space Marines going into battle with multilasers - it all depends on where you are looking, and if you prefer such interpretations you are free to follow them. Doesn't change that GW's books ignore them.

No, I was referencing Mitchel's Dead in the Water and Zou's book.

 Lynata wrote:

I'm gonna call BS on whatever book suggested Imperial Navy starships can be shot down by a handheld rocket launcher.

Not just one. FFG's Battlefleet Koronus, Forgeworld's Imperial Armour Aeronautica, Mitchel's Caves of Ice, and GW's Cityfight all state that IN dropships like the one you pointed out, can be shot down by man portable AA missiles. Don't feel too bad, so can Tau mantas. Planetstrike actually had them shot down with autocannons (pg 63).

 Lynata wrote:
Even if we'd go by this one novel, there is no reason these ICBMs could not be launched from orbit, is there?

No, but it also failed, to a degree, as anything under the cover of void shields was unharmed.

 Lynata wrote:
That does not change much, actually. If the weapon is exposed for a greater firing arc, it will be subject to bombardment. If it is concealed below ground, its targeting will be limited. Both are valid options for defense platforms, but naturally you cannot have an underground weapon with a 360° firing arc. There will always be some drawback.

Yes, the drawback is they're fixed positions. Thus that whole 'horizon' problem.

 Lynata wrote:

Also, a turret capable of killing titans (whose range would surely become limited as soon as we move away from tabletop rules) targeting dropships landing on a beach, would just as well be capable of targeting water ships landing on the same beach.

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.

 Lynata wrote:

And why are we assuming that a planet has such impressive defenses everywhere and the entire world is riddled with cannons and turrets, anyways? Not even Cadia is that well defended.

That depends on who wrote the fluff in the book in question. GW's answer is, as always 'YES!'. Planetstrike, has, for example, a planet wide AA defense so powerful that only by the forces of Chaos never bothering to change the passwords to keep the Imperium from reprogramming the AA guns are the Space Marines able to land. You won't have super lasers everywhere, no. Topography and energy requirements would prohibit that.

 Lynata wrote:

There will always be weak zones, as the defenders concentrate in fortresses and bunkers. If the defenses around the actual target area are judged to be too strong for a direct assault, the Imperial Guard will simply deploy in safe distance and then creep forward with trench warfare.

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

 Lynata wrote:
A more important part of the grimdark is actually the loss of technology. I would presume that guided missiles in 40k aren't as reliable as you seem to assume, be it due to the abysmal state of science in the IoM or because of jamming. Else we would see this being used by the orbiting spaceships - or against those hypothetical water ships, no?

Actually guided missiles are used by those IoM orbiting space ships. Please consult Battlefleet Gothic: Armada and FFG's Battlefleet Koronus. Basically, putting ships down and working your way to shore is the ocean planet version of trench warfare. The logic is that there are going to be areas that are at the utter limits of missile range due to topography,

 Lynata wrote:

As per your list, CnC facilities as well as the "mobile airfield" and the capacity to attack from anywhere (and not just along that body of water) already exist on the starships orbiting the planet and your heavy artillery + AA will be limited by only being able to move on deep-enough sea. Furthermore, some Imperial Navy starships are even equipped with the necessary facilities to drop pre-fabricated bastions directly into the battlefield, or project cones of anti-gravity to allow individual troop deployment directly onto the battlefield (it's like paratroopers without chutes! ).

The setting is (in GW's books) just written in this particular way, and given the descriptions on the Imperial Guard and the Imperial Navy as well as past military campaigns, I do not find this too hard to swallow. There are other things in the fluff that have me scratch my head, but not this topic.

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

Its no good dropping pre fab structures if you cruiser gets crippled in the process, or your troops get slaughtered in landers against AA emplacements.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

I'm gonna call BS on whatever book suggested Imperial Navy starships can be shot down by a handheld rocket launcher.

Not just one. FFG's Battlefleet Koronus, Forgeworld's Imperial Armour Aeronautica, Mitchel's Caves of Ice, and GW's Cityfight all state that IN dropships like the one you pointed out, can be shot down by man portable AA missiles. Don't feel too bad, so can Tau mantas. Planetstrike actually had them shot down with autocannons (pg 63).

I checked page 63, and wasn't able to find the passage you where talking about.

nomotog wrote:

I checked page 63, and wasn't able to find the passage you where talking about.

'Each bastion, bunker, and fortress bristled with expertly primed quad guns and and interceptor cannons...'

Which are, according to the earlier section, quad mounted autocannons and supercharged twinlinked lascannons, respectively. (Yes, again, conflict within the book, the description says they're rare, but the fluff has so many of them that the Space Marines cannot make a landing on the planet until the Inquisition uses it's magic inquisitorial password 'handwavius').

Autocannons are highly variable in calibre and nature, as are most weapons in 40K. The game makes a great many abstractions of things which omits alot of the variation and detail. That's one reason why gameplay is often a bad benchmark for judging or analyzing stuff (although it still happens, even in the novels I suspect..)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

nomotog wrote:

I checked page 63, and wasn't able to find the passage you where talking about.

'Each bastion, bunker, and fortress bristled with expertly primed quad guns and and interceptor cannons...'

Which are, according to the earlier section, quad mounted autocannons and supercharged twinlinked lascannons, respectively. (Yes, again, conflict within the book, the description says they're rare, but the fluff has so many of them that the Space Marines cannot make a landing on the planet until the Inquisition uses it's magic inquisitorial password 'handwavius').

Found it, It was on page 62 for me. They where shooting down drop pods though. Not navy ships.

nomotog wrote:

Found it, It was on page 62 for me. They where shooting down drop pods though. Not navy ships.

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. Thunderhawks are also nebulously involved, but again, no numbers. 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.

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

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Autocannons are highly variable in calibre and nature, as are most weapons in 40K. The game makes a great many abstractions of things which omits alot of the variation and detail. That's one reason why gameplay is often a bad benchmark for judging or analyzing stuff (although it still happens, even in the novels I suspect..)

A miniature exists for quad guns. They come with the aegis defense line.

So, claiming that they said 'autocannons' and meant earthshaker sized ones won't work. Icarus lascannons, mentioned as planetary defense, are also most likely the same icarus lascannons used occasionally in conjunction with vulcan megabolters for the 'turrets' stat on starships. Which shoot down manta's every bit as big as those IN drop ships.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

nomotog wrote:

Found it, It was on page 62 for me. They where shooting down drop pods though. Not navy ships.

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. Thunderhawks are also nebulously involved, but again, no numbers. 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.

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

Well I guess drop pods could like turn to the side to miss the planet or something. Ya the thing got nebulous. It says the rest of the force came under withering fire. It dosen't say what the force was, or if any ships where shot down. I'm just not seeing how you draw the conclusion that rockets launchers can shoot down spaceships. I want to hear the reference about hand held weapons shooting down a manta because that made me do a little spit take.

nomotog wrote:
I want to hear the reference about hand held weapons shooting down a manta because that made me do a little spit take.

I'll dig around, I believe it was something from FFG.

A Manta is only F 13 S 12 R 11, according to IA 3. It just has a lot of HP.

I dunno about you, but I'd say having a wet navy in the IoM would make sense because of three reasons:

1. Independence from other ground units - No matter how the IoM is doing on land, water forces are seperate from their situation and can either lend a hand, or remain functional after a complete roflstomp from an enemy force.

2. They are vastly cheaper to build and maintain than a fleet of space faring craft, and can likely provide equally effective ordinance as a space fleet - Yes, the Navy can destroy entire continents with a single salvo, but that's not really the goal when you're securing objectives on said continent.

3. They have unique defenses that make them deadly even to their space counterpart. - i.e. Many weapons hit water like they hit the ground, especially traveling at terminal velocity when launched from orbit, or dissipate quickly due to water's amazing properties of absorbing energy and heat better than almost any substance known. Stealth is also a major component beneath the waves - especially on worlds covered in ice. i.e. Valhalla would benefit greatly from a fleet of submarines that could punch through the ice and deliver their missiles to targets airborne, abroad, or in the great airless voids of space.

The Imperium gains little from defending themselves by sea that airborne combat doesn't accomplish faster, easier and simpler most of the time personally. Also very few strategic points on an ocean (when you think on a planetary scale) I think it is done, but rare as horsemounted combat in our battlefields today.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
The Imperium gains little from defending themselves by sea that airborne combat doesn't accomplish faster, easier and simpler most of the time personally. Also very few strategic points on an ocean (when you think on a planetary scale)

True, there are few strategic locations in the ocean, but a whole lot of them bordering it. The idea is, rather then trying to land by ramming drop ships and drop pods down their throat until they bury them under the weight of the wrecks, executing a landing by sea bypasses a lot of it and gives you more tactical flexibility once landed.

Granted, again, using tactics instead of burying them under the weight of their dead is not grimdark, and so the IoM will never 'officially' do it outside BL novels.

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The Land Raider is at least a sealed environment, in the SW codex there is an account of a great company driving their LRs underwater to attack a Tau base.

Not entirely sure how that works. Since the exhausts on the back indicate some sort of combustion engine, which would require oxygen.

The Rhino has twin engines, conventional engines and electric reserves. Basicly they just run on 2 of their four engines.
Presumably the Land Raider is the same or similar.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
The Imperium gains little from defending themselves by sea that airborne combat doesn't accomplish faster, easier and simpler most of the time personally. Also very few strategic points on an ocean (when you think on a planetary scale)

True, there are few strategic locations in the ocean, but a whole lot of them bordering it. The idea is, rather then trying to land by ramming drop ships and drop pods down their throat until they bury them under the weight of the wrecks, executing a landing by sea bypasses a lot of it and gives you more tactical flexibility once landed.

Granted, again, using tactics instead of burying them under the weight of their dead is not grimdark, and so the IoM will never 'officially' do it outside BL novels.

When the water provides protection from detection, the oceans become a key strategic objective in themselves - especially when individual subs these days carry nuclear arsenals that are capable of global annihilation on a chemical, biological, and nuclear level. Plane's have always feared the oceans because they belong to the navy's that have patrolled them. 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?

 Eetion wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The Land Raider is at least a sealed environment, in the SW codex there is an account of a great company driving their LRs underwater to attack a Tau base.

Not entirely sure how that works. Since the exhausts on the back indicate some sort of combustion engine, which would require oxygen.

The Rhino has twin engines, conventional engines and electric reserves. Basicly they just run on 2 of their four engines.
Presumably the Land Raider is the same or similar.

Diesel engine submarines have valves to shut off the snorkels which dispose of the exhaust and take in air, the exhausts on a Land Raider are clearly exposed (along with the weaponry and other electrics). Also the cabin would have to be pressurised.

You can't pressurize a fire port.

In a lascannon it probably won't make too much difference other to range and effectivenes. In heavy Bolters isn't the charge produced in the shell casing enabling the round to work in a vaccuum.
The exhausts will probably be sealable, and its not absolutely definite that it is a traditional diesel engine as opposed to a reactor of some form.

I'm pretty sure that I have the IA at home for the landraider specs. When I get home I will have a look.

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.

As for the cabin being pressurised, would it not need to be so anyway for the airless/radioactive/hazardous worlds it operates on anyway?

You would need to be pressurized to drive underwater or you could flood the cabin.

You would need serious pressurization in deep ocean encounters as well.

Didn't mean to imply it wasn't. But given the environents is supposed to operate isn't this needed as a standard.

We aren't talking about standard though. We are talking about water. *checks the thread title*