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.

After looking through aircraft inventories of various factions, I've realized that the Imperium doesn't seem to have any heavy hitters/mass bombers, which seems odd considering how much they fight against targets which would easily warrant them.

The closest thing seems to be the marauder which is more of a tactical bomber in all aspects, and I'm not sure how effective deployment of orbital attack craft like the starhawk would be.

Anyone know if such things have even been mentioned?

Why would they bother with strategic bombers if they could just bomb from orbit?

Huh, I've always thought imperial orbital strikes are really inaccurate and that there might be situations they wouldn't like such massive collateral damage.

Fluff and table top seem to show that orbital strikes are fairly accurate. Probably on the level of our modern laser guided bombings.

Heck, look at the chapter master orbital bombardment.

Orbital bombardments are reasonably accurate. Certainly enough to make strategic bombers obsolete. Only tactical bombers, which is where real accuracy would be desired, are still necessary.

Pinpoint accuracy is also less important to the Imperium than it is to us.

Once you are dropping ordinance on the strategic scale, accuracy that’s plus/minus a city block is probably fine. And orbital strikes are well within that range. If you need precision accuracy, tactical bombers or deep strike elite troops are going to be your answer.

The Guard don't but the Navy does http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Navy/MARAUDER-BOMBER.html

The Marauder is more like a suped up AC-130 Gunship. It's a tactical weapon with all the forward firing guns. Who needs inaccurate strategic bombing when you can call down an Orbital Lance?

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
The Marauder is more like a suped up AC-130 Gunship. It's a tactical weapon with all the forward firing guns. Who needs inaccurate strategic bombing when you can call down an Orbital Lance?

Wrong... Its a bomber.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Marauder_Bomber

 Ribon Fox wrote:

Wrong... Its a bomber.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Marauder_Bomber

Erm, did you actually bother to read that link before posting it? The section on strategic bombing says "While successful in this role, the Marauder is considered to have too small of a payload to be a truly effective strategic bomber."

Indeed. While it can be a Strategic bomber, its not particularly good at that role. Its a multi-purpose bomber with a focus on tactical attack.

That very link says its best at striking at vulnerable points behind enemy lines and at supporting ground troops.

In this way, its best parallel in the modern world is to think of it like an A-10. Its a close-air support bomber.

The Marauder fluff on the FW website describes it as a tactical bomber, but then you also have other examples of Marauders being used in a strategic role. IMO the best way to resolve the inconsistency is that the Marauder is good in some strategic roles (blowing up supply dumps behind the front lines, etc), but lacks the bomb payload to deal with big strategic targets (city-scale factories, fortresses, etc) without sending a huge number of bombers at once. But it's good enough that the Imperium can't justify spending resources on a heavier strategic bomber for the situations where a big target needs to be destroyed and orbital bombardment isn't an option. It's better to just send a swarm of Marauders and accept the inevitable losses, just like every other attrition strategy the Imperium uses as a substitute for the proper weapons and strategies.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
It's a tactical weapon with all the forward firing guns.

Actually those are defensive turrets to deal with enemy fighters. The Aeronautica Imperialis rules for the Marauder ban it from shooting at ground targets, its only ground attack weapon is its load of bombs (which it has plenty of). You might be thinking of the Destroyer variant which replaces some of the bombs and the defensive turrets with six front-mounted autocannons, eight hellstrike missiles, and a tail TL assault cannon turret. That's the ground attack version that is best used in direct support of ground troops.

The Marauder would be a suitable strategic bomber... in the 1950s, essentially being a jet-upgrade to the Lancaster.

In a sci-fi setting, it could operate as a strategic bomber, if Magos-Adept Wallace went and retrofitted its entire bomb bay
to carry one or two nukes instead of fifty bombs.

On that note, there's a great short story available on the Black Library website. The Emperor's Grace is a recounting of what happens when you attempt to use Marauders as strategic bombers!

The B52 has a payload of 70,000lb the Marauder has a paytload of 24,000lb (12,000lb internal, 12,000lb external) granted you could get more if you strip out the armments, say another 10,000lb of bombs.
Still not as much as the B52 but the Marauder is both an atmo and void based craft and is much smaller than the B52 in size.

Yes, which is why I compared it to the Avro Lancaster (22,000lb payload), rather than the B52.

Lancasters were still in service in Canada until 1963.

To me the Marauder was always a account of the B-17 / Lancaster bomber from WWII in a Sci fi setting. If you read Dan Abnetts Guns of Tanith or Double Eagle it talks about the roles of the Marauder bomber and how they are used to track down target much like bombers in WWII were used.

Large formations of them with interlocking boxes to cover each other against fighter formations. Also add in the grim-dark setting of 40k and its fairly clear that what we think of as strategic and tactical today doesn't really apply to the imperium. WWII tactics of mass bombers will work just as well as 1 nuke against a target when human life is cheaper and you dont want nuclear fall out.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Yes, which is why I compared it to the Avro Lancaster (22,000lb payload), rather than the B52.

Lancasters were still in service in Canada until 1963.

The US currently has drones with 20,000lb payloads

Unsurprising, unmanned aerial drones are the future of ground warfare, being much more precise than field guns. You'll still need infantry to take and hold, but the killing? Drones.

 swampyturtle wrote:
To me the Marauder was always a account of the B-17 / Lancaster bomber from WWII in a Sci fi setting. If you read Dan Abnetts Guns of Tanith or Double Eagle it talks about the roles of the Marauder bomber and how they are used to track down target much like bombers in WWII were used.

Large formations of them with interlocking boxes to cover each other against fighter formations. Also add in the grim-dark setting of 40k and its fairly clear that what we think of as strategic and tactical today doesn't really apply to the imperium. WWII tactics of mass bombers will work just as well as 1 nuke against a target when human life is cheaper and you dont want nuclear fall out.

Well the Imperium also has death strike ICBMs, titans, orbital bombardments, and no issue with dropping WMD level warheads on enemy positions. No force, leastwise in EPIC had real strategic level bombers that were substantially more powerful than marauders outside of Tau hitters, and those are arguable in the sense being used here as they are used more in the "floating titan" level.

Unlikely. Drones are prohibitively expensive.

They're good at killing hard targets, but killing ground troops armed with a few hundred bucks worth of equipment using ordinance that costs many thousands of dollars is a bad idea.

They're great for supporting small squads achieving vital objectives or if you need a specific target dead right now, but as a means of waging actual war, they're way too expensive.

Yeah, but large-scale war is also way too expensive, nobody in their right mind lets a situation develop to war status when they can use a commando squad with drone support to head it off at the pass.

Im curious how often the imperium gets into a protracted planetary war where destroying the other sides factories is really a problem.

Surely there a battles like Armaggeddon, where the battle lasts a long time, but the other side is likely getting its supplies from blockade runners, looting, or underground manufacturing deep within the debris of war.

I dont think the IoM has any need for a strategic bomber

Probably quite often.

Any time you are attacking a world with manufacturing facilities, if the war lasts for any length of time and/or you don't want to capture the facilities for yourself then destroying them is a good idea.

Bloomshadow wrote:
Huh, I've always thought imperial orbital strikes are really inaccurate and that there might be situations they wouldn't like such massive collateral damage.

Strategic bombing is inaccurate in and of itself.

It makes more sense to use naval batteries from orbit instead. The only exception to this rule is CAS such as the avenger.

the marauder is much more like a b-25 than a b-17. Its too small, and doesn't have enough guns. I've seen a fortress and c-130s while i was flying a cessna 172, and trust me the marauder is way too small in comparison to other models to be compared to the fortress.

The bombload is 6,000 kg for both the b-17 and the Marauder though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Probably quite often.

Any time you are attacking a world with manufacturing facilities, if the war lasts for any length of time and/or you don't want to capture the facilities for yourself then destroying them is a good idea.

but how often do they get into a war on a planet that lasts any length of time.

also if they do get into such a conflict, how much do there care about precision and not just use orbital strikes to quickly collapse any structures on the side of the planet they do not control.

Armageddon has lasted decades. As has the battle for Cadia. Krieg also lasted for a long time.

Sure, most planets will be overrun in a matter of weeks, but some number will hold on for months or years. And that alone means bombing factories is a necessary ability to have.

Siege of Vraks.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Probably quite often.

Any time you are attacking a world with manufacturing facilities, if the war lasts for any length of time and/or you don't want to capture the facilities for yourself then destroying them is a good idea.

Nuke them from orbit, then drop 300mm IG to clean up the mess. Its the Chicago way.

People are forgetting that, in 40K, orbital bombardment fulfills the role of heavy support. Its why marines are irrelevant. Only their ships in orbit really matter.

In 40K strategic bombers are obsolete. Orbital Strikes are pretty accurate and they don't need to be pinpoint, just within a few dozen metres or so, for full effect. The Imperium has no concept of "civilian casualties" and would have no issue turning a major city overrun with orks to ashes, if there were maybe, 2 million civilians? They would pound it to ashes and repopulate within a few years.

But you can't have a ship up there all the time, the Navy still has other jobs to do, so thats where bombers are still needed.