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.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If that is the situation they'll simply land the orbital drop ships on the beaches. That and/or they'll bomb it from orbit.

If the enemy is foolish enough to maintain a wet navy, they'll just hit the ships with orbital or air strikes.

Well, if the beach is heavily fortified then the orbital drop ships will get shot at before they can land.

Even if orbital bombardment is insanely powerful, the Wet Navy is to the sea what the Guard is to the land. If you need the job done on land, get the Guard. If you need to get it done on the high seas, get the Wet Navy.

As long as there are War Worlds with big oceans a Wet Navy will be required.
It's strange to think that military forces in the 41st millennium would have abandoned wet navies entirely. Just because GW doesn't cover it doesn't mean it it's non-existent.

No, the Wet Navy is not to the sea what the Guard is to the land.

You need the Guard in land warfare to hold ground and objectives after the big guns (orbital or otherwise) have cleared the enemy off them.

You can't 'hold ground' at sea. There are no landmarks or terrain features to hold. The closest you might get is an island (holdable by troops) or a deep sea drilling platform.

The wet navy are just like the space navy: They remove the enemy from the ground, and they put troops on the ground.

Watercraft are far more vulnerable to point defence systems than aircraft because of the relative difference in speed and size between the two. Boats are big and slow. Aircraft tend to be small and fast.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Well, if the beach is heavily fortified then the orbital drop ships will get shot at before they can land.

And somehow in your mind boats will not?

Even if orbital bombardment is insanely powerful, the Wet Navy is to the sea what the Guard is to the land. If you need the job done on land, get the Guard. If you need to get it done on the high seas, get the Wet Navy.

As long as there are War Worlds with big oceans a Wet Navy will be required.
It's strange to think that military forces in the 41st millennium would have abandoned wet navies entirely. Just because GW doesn't cover it doesn't mean it it's non-existent.

You know how control of the oceans today is determined by carriers and their aircraft?

Well there is an even better version of an Aircraft Carrier. In space. its also got obscenely powerful direct fire weapons it can use to bombard a target in addition to the aircraft it will deploy. And unlike an ocean going vessel its not nearly as fragile, nor is it bound to one planet. cause its a freaking space ship.

Maximus Bitch wrote:When the Guard needs additional firepower in a warzone, they often ferry troops and vehicles from nearby PDFs to the warzone.

Really? I thought that was the point of the imperial guard. PDFs were to defend that planet.

Anyways, it's 40k, so anything is possible. I'm sure you could come up with a dozen situations where you'd need grand armadas of surface vessels. But fluffwise, they're going to be very, very rare.

I read something once where the author pointed out that of all the naval battles in the past 500 years something like roughly two of them were fought outside of 40 miles from shore. Naval battles happen next to land because ocean is useless while land is valuable. Furthermore, war is a political activity: It's something where you fight against other people for the purpose of effecting people. Fighting over a hive city is important. Fighting over this particular one square mile of water in the middle of a vast ocean isn't.

People live on land, which is why wars happen there. When you can attack people living on land from orbit there's not much use for boats.

@OP: why do you want to believe in the guard having a wet navy so much?

He's probably involved in some way with his country's Navy.

I could see some use for a wet navy landing if the objective is really really valuable and not prepared for attack from the sea. A planetary defense laser battery will have heavy AA and probably a lot of ground defense pointed toward any sensible approach overland, but if wet navy isn't a thing on the world it might have quite light defenses pointed out over water. People have botched fortifications before, thinking there's no way for an attacker to come at them from the "wrong" direction.

Ofc, that still requires that the attacker really wants it 100% intact and he doesn't have access to space marines or other drop troops that can try a high-risk surprise attack.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If that is the situation they'll simply land the orbital drop ships on the beaches. That and/or they'll bomb it from orbit.

If the enemy is foolish enough to maintain a wet navy, they'll just hit the ships with orbital or air strikes.

Well, if the beach is heavily fortified then the orbital drop ships will get shot at before they can land.

Even if orbital bombardment is insanely powerful, the Wet Navy is to the sea what the Guard is to the land. If you need the job done on land, get the Guard. If you need to get it done on the high seas, get the Wet Navy.

As long as there are War Worlds with big oceans a Wet Navy will be required.
It's strange to think that military forces in the 41st millennium would have abandoned wet navies entirely. Just because GW doesn't cover it doesn't mean it it's non-existent.

No, the Wet Navy is not to the sea what the Guard is to the land.

You need the Guard in land warfare to hold ground and objectives after the big guns (orbital or otherwise) have cleared the enemy off them.

You can't 'hold ground' at sea. There are no landmarks or terrain features to hold. The closest you might get is an island (holdable by troops) or a deep sea drilling platform.

The wet navy are just like the space navy: They remove the enemy from the ground, and they put troops on the ground.

Watercraft are far more vulnerable to point defence systems than aircraft because of the relative difference in speed and size between the two. Boats are big and slow. Aircraft tend to be small and fast.

Nope, you can control a vital stretch of water with a wet navy. Anyway, if you're saying that a super duper air force can render a wet navy obsolete then it might also severely limit the effectiveness of infantry. Submarines are also less susceptible. See my other posts for more info.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Well, if the beach is heavily fortified then the orbital drop ships will get shot at before they can land.

And somehow in your mind boats will not?

Even if orbital bombardment is insanely powerful, the Wet Navy is to the sea what the Guard is to the land. If you need the job done on land, get the Guard. If you need to get it done on the high seas, get the Wet Navy.

As long as there are War Worlds with big oceans a Wet Navy will be required.
It's strange to think that military forces in the 41st millennium would have abandoned wet navies entirely. Just because GW doesn't cover it doesn't mean it it's non-existent.

You know how control of the oceans today is determined by carriers and their aircraft?

Well there is an even better version of an Aircraft Carrier. In space. its also got obscenely powerful direct fire weapons it can use to bombard a target in addition to the aircraft it will deploy. And unlike an ocean going vessel its not nearly as fragile, nor is it bound to one planet. cause its a freaking space ship.

Boats will also get shot at but they're probably more innocuous than aerial dropship, though this may depend on environmental factors. A submarine invasion is even better, you can't see them til they've reached the shore. Granted, they can do a similar job be they floating on water or hovering in air. However, don't forget about energy considerations.


Anyway, what all of you are saying is that a super duper air force may render surface forces obsolete. Would that become a reality?

Modern aircraft carriers are at risk of being sunk by hypersonic missiles. If that's also the situation in the 41st, perhaps the Imperium might invest in a fleet of small, agile submarines in addition to a fleet of light, fast attack planes. And there may also be big-ass submarines with powerful anti air and anti orbital capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:When the Guard needs additional firepower in a warzone, they often ferry troops and vehicles from nearby PDFs to the warzone.

Really? I thought that was the point of the imperial guard. PDFs were to defend that planet.

Anyways, it's 40k, so anything is possible. I'm sure you could come up with a dozen situations where you'd need grand armadas of surface vessels. But fluffwise, they're going to be very, very rare.

I read something once where the author pointed out that of all the naval battles in the past 500 years something like roughly two of them were fought outside of 40 miles from shore. Naval battles happen next to land because ocean is useless while land is valuable. Furthermore, war is a political activity: It's something where you fight against other people for the purpose of effecting people. Fighting over a hive city is important. Fighting over this particular one square mile of water in the middle of a vast ocean isn't.

People live on land, which is why wars happen there. When you can attack people living on land from orbit there's not much use for boats.

From what I know Guardsmen are the tithes from PDFs.

Land and cities are valuable resources but waterways can also turn into vital choke points. You said that boats are not necessary when we can attack people from orbit. Nowadays fighter jets enjoy widespread use but I don't see boats going anytime soon.

If you wanna take over a city, using aerial bombardment might be an overkill and end up destroying precious infrastructure. So you send in infantry to weed out local insurgents. Similarly, a wet navy can establish control over a particularly vital waterway choke point.

Aircraft can do the job too, fighting above the water's surface instead of on it, but they can't stay there to hold the area. They need to return to some sort of carrier, which may be at risk due to hypersonic anti obital missiles. A carrier in orbit might be too far away as well, even if all the aircraft in question are super duper fast. Carriers floating on water or hovering above it are sitting ducks, even if they have void shields. Not to mention the tremendous amount of energy used for hovering.

Unless you want some sort of submersible aircraft, a combination of the air force and navy? Using all-in-one multi purpose vehicles.

I guess there might be some really rare occasions where IG could use water-based forces. For example, if they fight something underwater. But they'd be built exclusively for such missions cause as far as i know, the Imperium doesn't have a navy park.

 koooaei wrote:
I guess there might be some really rare occasions where IG could use water-based forces. For example, if they fight something underwater. But they'd be built exclusively for such missions cause as far as i know, the Imperium doesn't have a navy park.

What's a navy park?


And back to my original question, what would the Imperium call their wet navy? Would they call it a Sea Force?

short answer is: NO. why even start a discussion if as soon as some people (or everyone, in this situation) disagree with you your put your fingers in your ears and go la la la.
therte is NO wet navy. there is NO wet navy, ok? /thread.

There would literally be no need for a wet navy, or even bother for specialsed water based craft.

You can fly in much less vulernable, more powerful and faster vehicles.

If we had that technology today the navy would cease to exist.

Maximus Bitch wrote:Land and cities are valuable resources but waterways can also turn into vital choke points.

Umm... sure. I guess there could be a "canal warfare:40k". Once again, this is going to be rare, though.

Especially since aircraft > boats for the last 60 years and spacecraft > aircraft > seacraft.

Maximus Bitch wrote:You said that boats are not necessary when we can attack people from orbit. Nowadays fighter jets enjoy widespread use but I don't see boats going anytime soon.

Because our current world is restrained by logistics. What else does the modern navy provide other than the efficient moving of resources?

If you were living in a world of rampant, easy, efficient space-travel, though, boats would be made rather obsolete.

Wet navies are only useful because there's water in the way. If you can bypass water, then there is much less use. The fact that modern airforces haven't surmounted this problem yet doesn't mean that a sci-fi setting that HAS figured out these problems hasn't figured out these problems.

Maximus Bitch wrote:If you wanna take over a city, using aerial bombardment might be an overkill and end up destroying precious infrastructure. So you send in infantry to weed out local insurgents. Similarly, a wet navy can establish control over a particularly vital waterway choke point.

What?

What does the idea of collateral damage mean on the ocean? How are there ever "local insurgents" in a place where nobody lives?

Maximus Bitch wrote:Aircraft can do the job too, fighting above the water's surface instead of on it, but they can't stay there to hold the area. They need to return to some sort of carrier, which may be at risk due to hypersonic anti obital missiles. A carrier in orbit might be too far away as well, even if all the aircraft in question are super duper fast. Carriers floating on water or hovering above it are sitting ducks, even if they have void shields. Not to mention the tremendous amount of energy used for hovering.

A great argument for why there aren't wet navies. All ships would have these problems.

Maximus Bitch wrote: Submarines are also less susceptible.

In a setting that includes orbital bombardment and exterminatus? Not likely.

How much use is a sumbarine against "bombard it from orbit"? It's like infantry shooting at aircraft.

A submarine might be protected against orbital bombardment, but do you know what most submarines are useful for?

Hunting surface ships or carrying long-range missiles.

Long-range missiles are rendered obsolete by orbital bombardments, because the bombardment requires much less energy to achieve the same effects. A missile doesn't need nearly as huge a fuel reserve if it only has to go down, and not up.

As for hypersonic missiles, that's what CIWS are for - most CIWS are effectively computer-controlled chainguns that track and shoot down incoming missiles and fighters.

Next: Titans may render this argument moot, but they do require specialised ships and transports that are almost as rare as the titans themselves. Moving ships down from orbit or back up again is a massive drain on resources, not to mention the fact that large vessels generally aren't designed to stay in drydock for long periods of time since it puts significant and, more importantly, different stresses on the hull compared to being in water. In short, it's much less draining on resources to send a bomber or a troop transport down from orbit then recall it back to the orbiting ship between missions than it is to do the same for an oceangoing vessel.


Next on the agenda: During the raid on Kastorel-Novem, the Imperium chose to establish a field base on a separate continent rather than deploying ships to support the Elysians. Would aircraft carriers have been better? In terms of resupplying and re-arming the troops on the ground, quite possibly. If the option was available to the regiment involved, they certainly would have used it. As it was, it took six hours for their air support to reset and the Elysians all died as a result. No mention of it is made - it's possible that the Orkish naval superiority was too great.

Finally: Holding water. Blockading large stretches of ocean is near impossible. A ship is tiny compared to an ocean, and unlike space where you have to deal with limited safe channels through the Warp, the ocean is deep enough that it doesn't matter. As they discovered during World War 1, it's actually much easier to slip a convoy through a submarine screen than it is a scattering of individual ships, because even though a convoy is a much larger target than a single ship, compared to the vastness of the ocean and the amount of space that has to be patrolled to claim it, it's still infinitisemal.

 mitch_rifle wrote:
There would literally be no need for a wet navy, or even bother for specialsed water based craft.

You can fly in much less vulernable, more powerful and faster vehicles.

If we had that technology today the navy would cease to exist.

You should view the possible evolutional routes more widely. Even our own evolution path could have led us to inhabit the sea depths rather than the ground.

Imagine, the imperium has encountered a reach colonizable world with aggressive amphibious xenos with advanced underwater technology. They basically live under-water and have their military bases there. And they don't really want to give up on their homeworld. They've inevitably lost a war on the surface but the bulk of their relatively advanced forces resides beneath the sea level and are unreachable by regular imperial army tools.

Note, that currently it's somewhat easier to send a man into space than investigate the Mariana Trench.

What would the imperium do? It's a planet worth living on. But all your ground, air and space forces can't do anything vs an underwater enemy. Basically, the Imperium has 2 viable solutions, since letting the xenos live in peace is not an option for umanz. Either they deal with constant raids from beneath and build heavy defences basically admitting their inability to deal with a minor aggressive xenos race, or go underwater and wage a war there.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
short answer is: NO. why even start a discussion if as soon as some people (or everyone, in this situation) disagree with you your put your fingers in your ears and go la la la.
therte is NO wet navy. there is NO wet navy, ok? /thread.

First of all, those who disagree strongly will reply more frequently and more vocally.
What do you want me to do, simply accept it because I'm in the minority?

Secondly, I'm replying frequently and attempting to address everyone's points. I haven't outright ignored any point at all. Whether I've addressed them adequately is a different matter.

Just because I'm rebutting doesn't mean I'm sticking my fingers in my ears. If you think I am, feel free to point out specifically what. And you haven't answered my previous question to you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:Land and cities are valuable resources but waterways can also turn into vital choke points.

Umm... sure. I guess there could be a "canal warfare:40k". Once again, this is going to be rare, though.

Especially since aircraft > boats for the last 60 years and spacecraft > aircraft > seacraft.

Maximus Bitch wrote:You said that boats are not necessary when we can attack people from orbit. Nowadays fighter jets enjoy widespread use but I don't see boats going anytime soon.

Because our current world is restrained by logistics. What else does the modern navy provide other than the efficient moving of resources?

If you were living in a world of rampant, easy, efficient space-travel, though, boats would be made rather obsolete.

Wet navies are only useful because there's water in the way. If you can bypass water, then there is much less use. The fact that modern airforces haven't surmounted this problem yet doesn't mean that a sci-fi setting that HAS figured out these problems hasn't figured out these problems.

Maximus Bitch wrote:If you wanna take over a city, using aerial bombardment might be an overkill and end up destroying precious infrastructure. So you send in infantry to weed out local insurgents. Similarly, a wet navy can establish control over a particularly vital waterway choke point.

What?

What does the idea of collateral damage mean on the ocean? How are there ever "local insurgents" in a place where nobody lives?

Maximus Bitch wrote:Aircraft can do the job too, fighting above the water's surface instead of on it, but they can't stay there to hold the area. They need to return to some sort of carrier, which may be at risk due to hypersonic anti obital missiles. A carrier in orbit might be too far away as well, even if all the aircraft in question are super duper fast. Carriers floating on water or hovering above it are sitting ducks, even if they have void shields. Not to mention the tremendous amount of energy used for hovering.

A great argument for why there aren't wet navies. All ships would have these problems.

Maximus Bitch wrote: Submarines are also less susceptible.

In a setting that includes orbital bombardment and exterminatus? Not likely.

How much use is a sumbarine against "bombard it from orbit"? It's like infantry shooting at aircraft.

Space/aircraft are indeed more powerful in many ways no doubt. But you wouldn't get rid of all the sea craft, you would use them in conjunction.

Oh, ok I get what you mean. I still believe subs can be more inconspicuous under certain circumstances, and definitely use less energy.

No, no, no, of course there is no collateral damage or local insurgents floating in the water. What I mean is that you use your sea vessels to take control of an area of water just like you use tanks to take control of an area of land.

Apologies, I was a bit unclear. What I meant to say is that aircraft "need to return to some sort of orbiting[u] carrier, which may be at risk due to hypersonic anti orbital missiles". Since floating carriers are also sitting ducks, submarines are a better solution.

Who knows just how deep these future Imperial subs can go? They just might be able to avoid orbital bombardment. Also, in the vast ocean, you need to locate a sub before you can score a hit on it. On some alien world where the waters are murky as feth, it might be impossible to find an enemy sub without a sonar-capable sub of your own! There you have it, a stage for "Deep Sea Battles in the Grim Darkness of the 41st Millennium".

Like a WH40K interactive version of Das Boot (1981). Imperial Guardsmen, thousands of feet under, desperately trying to survive against Chaotic subs. Murky waters may even provide a grittier setting than the starlit backdrops of outer space. You can even add swimming sea daemons/monsters if you like.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
A submarine might be protected against orbital bombardment, but do you know what most submarines are useful for?

Hunting surface ships or carrying long-range missiles.

Long-range missiles are rendered obsolete by orbital bombardments, because the bombardment requires much less energy to achieve the same effects. A missile doesn't need nearly as huge a fuel reserve if it only has to go down, and not up.

As for hypersonic missiles, that's what CIWS are for - most CIWS are effectively computer-controlled chainguns that track and shoot down incoming missiles and fighters.

Next: Titans may render this argument moot, but they do require specialised ships and transports that are almost as rare as the titans themselves. Moving ships down from orbit or back up again is a massive drain on resources, not to mention the fact that large vessels generally aren't designed to stay in drydock for long periods of time since it puts significant and, more importantly, different stresses on the hull compared to being in water. In short, it's much less draining on resources to send a bomber or a troop transport down from orbit then recall it back to the orbiting ship between missions than it is to do the same for an oceangoing vessel.


Next on the agenda: During the raid on Kastorel-Novem, the Imperium chose to establish a field base on a separate continent rather than deploying ships to support the Elysians. Would aircraft carriers have been better? In terms of resupplying and re-arming the troops on the ground, quite possibly. If the option was available to the regiment involved, they certainly would have used it. As it was, it took six hours for their air support to reset and the Elysians all died as a result. No mention of it is made - it's possible that the Orkish naval superiority was too great.

Finally: Holding water. Blockading large stretches of ocean is near impossible. A ship is tiny compared to an ocean, and unlike space where you have to deal with limited safe channels through the Warp, the ocean is deep enough that it doesn't matter. As they discovered during World War 1, it's actually much easier to slip a convoy through a submarine screen than it is a scattering of individual ships, because even though a convoy is a much larger target than a single ship, compared to the vastness of the ocean and the amount of space that has to be patrolled to claim it, it's still infinitisemal.

Good points you got there.

True that the missile only needs to go down, perhaps submarines could launch their missiles at odd and unexpected angles, from unexpected locations as well?

CIWS hasn't caught up to hypersonic yet, and maybe by the time it does missiles might be high-hypersonic. Rockets are cheap to launch, expensive to block. Given the Admech's primitive approach, I'd say the offensive side would trump the defensive side.

Perhaps these subs can stay in the ocean for long periods of time, just like modern day nuclear subs.

I'll go read IA V8.

So what if two factions try to sneak each other's convoys past each other's blockades?

I've never met someone who loved navies this much that didn't work for one. Do you have a navy family or something?

The problem really comes down to logistics and tactical value.

Despite their size and the size of the Imperial Guard as a whole, there's only ever so much room on ships to transport men and material. Ships take up an enormous amount of space when compared to say, more troops or tanks, I think we can agree on that.

The problem, tactically, comes when your fleet rocks into orbit in the next warzone. So many conditions are necessary to give waterborne vessels an advantage:

1. Does the planet have liquid on it?
2. Does the planet have ENOUGH liquid on it?
3. Does the liquid on the planet support heavy ships?
4. Is there tactical value in holding the water (in a world with a single continent, probably not)
5. Is there something here a ship can do that orbital strike craft cannot? (The best I've seen for this so far is in the realm of ambushes and unexpected attacks)
6. Are there objectives that cannot be captured any other way?
7. Do those objectives have enough value on their own to require capture?

With all of those questions laid out, there still comes down to if your campaign is getting value out losing a huge portion of storage space on your transports for boats when you could have another few regiments of Guard in the same space. Are there circumstances where it might happen? Sure, I'd concede that. But are there enough planets with adequate environmental and tactical conditions to make them a constant feature of any Guard force? That's where I'd say no.

I can see waterborne navies existing, but on a planet by planet, PDF-level thing. Now that's not to say they aren't effective or impressive, they are just very specifically-shaped pegs in a galaxy that doesn't have many matching holes.

 koooaei wrote:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
There would literally be no need for a wet navy, or even bother for specialsed water based craft.

You can fly in much less vulernable, more powerful and faster vehicles.

If we had that technology today the navy would cease to exist.

You should view the possible evolutional routes more widely. Even our own evolution path could have led us to inhabit the sea depths rather than the ground.

Imagine, the imperium has encountered a reach colonizable world with aggressive amphibious xenos with advanced underwater technology. They basically live under-water and have their military bases there. And they don't really want to give up on their homeworld. They've inevitably lost a war on the surface but the bulk of their relatively advanced forces resides beneath the sea level and are unreachable by regular imperial army tools.

Note, that currently it's somewhat easier to send a man into space than investigate the Mariana Trench.

What would the imperium do? It's a planet worth living on. But all your ground, air and space forces can't do anything vs an underwater enemy. Basically, the Imperium has 2 viable solutions, since letting the xenos live in peace is not an option for umanz. Either they deal with constant raids from beneath and build heavy defences basically admitting their inability to deal with a minor aggressive xenos race, or go underwater and wage a war there.

Then you send in the Space Marines, who can operate underwater just as effectively as they operate on land on in the vacuum of space. And you kill each and every one of these fish-faced freaks, you render their works into dust, and you make it as if they never were.

IRT missiles and rockets... they currently defend ground-based targets, such as entire cities, with energy shields. These defend the cities from all kinds of attacks, including missiles and bombs, as well as orbital strikes. You'd be pissing into the wind trying to use missiles launched from subs to take out such a city, especially if the space overhead is dominated by the faction that also owns the city.

Sub surfaces, fires missile, sub is vaporized by orbital strike, missile hits Void Shield and vanishes.

 curran12 wrote:
The problem really comes down to logistics and tactical value.

Despite their size and the size of the Imperial Guard as a whole, there's only ever so much room on ships to transport men and material. Ships take up an enormous amount of space when compared to say, more troops or tanks, I think we can agree on that.

The problem, tactically, comes when your fleet rocks into orbit in the next warzone. So many conditions are necessary to give waterborne vessels an advantage:

1. Does the planet have liquid on it?
2. Does the planet have ENOUGH liquid on it?
3. Does the liquid on the planet support heavy ships?
4. Is there tactical value in holding the water (in a world with a single continent, probably not)
5. Is there something here a ship can do that orbital strike craft cannot? (The best I've seen for this so far is in the realm of ambushes and unexpected attacks)
6. Are there objectives that cannot be captured any other way?
7. Do those objectives have enough value on their own to require capture?

With all of those questions laid out, there still comes down to if your campaign is getting value out losing a huge portion of storage space on your transports for boats when you could have another few regiments of Guard in the same space. Are there circumstances where it might happen? Sure, I'd concede that. But are there enough planets with adequate environmental and tactical conditions to make them a constant feature of any Guard force? That's where I'd say no.

I can see waterborne navies existing, but on a planet by planet, PDF-level thing. Now that's not to say they aren't effective or impressive, they are just very specifically-shaped pegs in a galaxy that doesn't have many matching holes.

Perhaps, but it is also possible that a large percentage of Imperial worlds are Earth-like with plenty of water.

There's a good reason why 40K has few naval battles. Firstly, it's very hard to integrate with land based infantry battles. Different objectives, scope and scale. The infantry battles are crowded as opposed to wide stretches of ocean of wet naval warfare.

Secondly, even if we had a standalone wet naval game, it would be a lot less personal, due to all the men being inside their craft and not running about on the field. Unless you had frogmen.

Lastly, we do have a naval game, Battlefleet Gothic, but it is set in space. A game set at sea would be too much like our modern world and not distinctively 40k enough. Too boring from a commercial standpoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I've never met someone who loved navies this much that didn't work for one. Do you have a navy family or something?

No, I really don't. No ties to the navy at all. Do I sound like a navy fanboy?

I don't think I'm the sort of person who would fall into fanboyism. It's not like I'm proclaiming "wet navy is da best, so awesome, better than the rest etc"

I don't have a strong love for seacraft, be they ancient, contemporary, 40K or otherwise. I'm arguing cos I believe there should be some sort of wet navy, existing in some form, and there are some posters who are just so anti-navy for some reason. Maybe they're arguing out of pride?

For me, I've been influenced by the game Supreme Commander, which demonstrates the vital integration of air, land and sea forces to win a battle.

 Psienesis wrote:


Then you send in the Space Marines, who can operate underwater just as effectively as they operate on land on in the vacuum of space.

Do space marines have underwater craft? Or would they try to deep strike under-water with overwhelming ammount of termintaors? Cause otherwise i fail to see how a regular chapter can go underwater without any war engines and hope for sucksess. They could be facing whole civilizations there. Who have way more underwater experience just cause they live and wage war there since immemorian.

I guess this type of warfare is simply not touched by any of the 40k authots.

Besides, even if space marines are capable of taking this threat out, is it worth wasting their time and precious body-count when you can simply build (or have) some sub-marines to do the job? I mean you can hit the nails with your car when you don't have a hammer. But for some reason you go to a tool-shop nearby and get a hammer.

I know Orks have sea vessels, so it's likely that the IoM have some as well.

I would expect it to be a planet by planet thing, rather than something the Imperial Guard carries around though.
Also, remember that the Chimera is an Amphibious transport, so it's not as if the IoM has never heard of water before.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I know Orks have sea vessels, so it's likely that the IoM have some as well.

I would expect it to be a planet by planet thing, rather than something the Imperial Guard carries around though.
Also, remember that the Chimera is an Amphibious transport, so it's not as if the IoM has never heard of water before.

Well, it's sure planet-by-planet in most cases. But it also makes sence to have something in the pocket in case emergency arises. It might be rare but hey, you don't get into car crashes all that often but you still tighten a sit belt...do you?

I guess this type of things are just a bit out of setting to be described in detail and get avoided. But if you think about it consistently, there is sence in sea-craft in 40k cause space-craft is not omnipotent. Why keep this weak spot if you have everything needed to cover it without losses of space marine chapters?

 koooaei wrote:
Do space marines have underwater craft?

They're ironically called 'Land Raiders'.

They are described as fully capable of traversing the sea floor.

awesome.
"under the sea, under the-"
"FOWA THE EMPRAH!"
"dear god run Ariel!"
"DEATH TO THE MUTANT!" shoots little mermaide with hurricane bolters.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Perhaps, but it is also possible that a large percentage of Imperial worlds are Earth-like with plenty of water.

There's a good reason why 40K has few naval battles. Firstly, it's very hard to integrate with land based infantry battles. Different objectives, scope and scale. The infantry battles are crowded as opposed to wide stretches of ocean of wet naval warfare.

Secondly, even if we had a standalone wet naval game, it would be a lot less personal, due to all the men being inside their craft and not running about on the field. Unless you had frogmen.

Lastly, we do have a naval game, Battlefleet Gothic, but it is set in space. A game set at sea would be too much like our modern world and not distinctively 40k enough. Too boring from a commercial standpoint.

What are you basing that assumption of water-heavy worlds on? If it is nothing other than your desire to see a navy in action, I'm afraid that you need to give me more than that. After all, Terra in 40k has no oceans anymore:

" The Earth was stripped of all forms of natural resources many millennia ago; its soil is utterly barren and its atmosphere is now a fog of industrial pollution. Massive, labyrinthine edifices of state sprawl across the vast majority of the surface. What remained of Terra's oceans after the thermonuclear wars that scarred the planet during the Age of Strife long ago boiled away due to the immense heat produced by the billions of people who have been compressed into the world's limited living space. All liquid water to meet the Terran population's needs is now delivered from orbit by freighters who take large ice-bearing comets from the outer Solar System and bring them into Terran orbit to be melted down and dispersed to the population. "

The very nature of how cities develop in 40k is a strong indication of how little value oceans have now. It is not an economic necessity because of the abundance of space and flight craft, nor is it it a military necessity for the same reason.

Think of it this way, maybe this will help my explanation:

You are a Warmaster, and your job is to conquer worlds. You have only so much space to take your Guard regiments and support elements. While you could take a navy, think of how much space that is going to take up. First, there's the ships, then there's the supplies to maintain the ships, then there's the crews to man the ships and so on. All of this is space that is not being used to transport Guardsmen and armor, things that work in all situations against all objectives of known value. It is like the explorers of the 1800s in Australia who lugged boats through the desert just in case.

an american that knows Australian history?

 curran12 wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Perhaps, but it is also possible that a large percentage of Imperial worlds are Earth-like with plenty of water.

There's a good reason why 40K has few naval battles. Firstly, it's very hard to integrate with land based infantry battles. Different objectives, scope and scale. The infantry battles are crowded as opposed to wide stretches of ocean of wet naval warfare.

Secondly, even if we had a standalone wet naval game, it would be a lot less personal, due to all the men being inside their craft and not running about on the field. Unless you had frogmen.

Lastly, we do have a naval game, Battlefleet Gothic, but it is set in space. A game set at sea would be too much like our modern world and not distinctively 40k enough. Too boring from a commercial standpoint.

What are you basing that assumption of water-heavy worlds on? If it is nothing other than your desire to see a navy in action, I'm afraid that you need to give me more than that. After all, Terra in 40k has no oceans anymore:

" The Earth was stripped of all forms of natural resources many millennia ago; its soil is utterly barren and its atmosphere is now a fog of industrial pollution. Massive, labyrinthine edifices of state sprawl across the vast majority of the surface. What remained of Terra's oceans after the thermonuclear wars that scarred the planet during the Age of Strife long ago boiled away due to the immense heat produced by the billions of people who have been compressed into the world's limited living space. All liquid water to meet the Terran population's needs is now delivered from orbit by freighters who take large ice-bearing comets from the outer Solar System and bring them into Terran orbit to be melted down and dispersed to the population. "

The very nature of how cities develop in 40k is a strong indication of how little value oceans have now. It is not an economic necessity because of the abundance of space and flight craft, nor is it it a military necessity for the same reason.

Think of it this way, maybe this will help my explanation:

You are a Warmaster, and your job is to conquer worlds. You have only so much space to take your Guard regiments and support elements. While you could take a navy, think of how much space that is going to take up. First, there's the ships, then there's the supplies to maintain the ships, then there's the crews to man the ships and so on. All of this is space that is not being used to transport Guardsmen and armor, things that work in all situations against all objectives of known value. It is like the explorers of the 1800s in Australia who lugged boats through the desert just in case.

Does that mean that if you were to destroy this freighters, Terra would immediately die from dehydration? I wonder how much damage destroying one shipment would do...

Because I'm sure they don't have water storage...

If it's empty, it won't do much good.

Of course, if all it takes is one shipment to hydrate Terra's population for a long period of time it may not be that effective of a tactic.

Full disclosre: I am in the Navy!

Like Ailaros said, this is 40k....so hey, anything is possible. I too am in the camp that a sea-based IG regiment that schleps a bunch of ocean-going Grim Dark Battleships from planet to planet is a bit unlikely, although it might be cool if they were dual-mode space and wet navy ships like the Yamato/Argo.

More likely, though, I imagine you will find Imperial wet navies on technologicaly regressed planets (of which there are no shortage in the fluff). I mean, there was the one Gaunt's Ghosts novel where the entire planet was engaged in essentially WWI-style trench warfare and even the humble las-gun was a rarity. Not to mention the planets that are mentioned as being so primitave that the humans do their combat with bows and arrows!

So, I guess my point is that it is definitely true that if you have all the goodies that a fully equiped IG regiment or Space Marine chapter have access to, then a wet Navy is probably not critical or maybe even relevant. However, there are still a goodly number of Imperial worlds that may not have access to those resources in enough quantities to do everything from orbit or by drop ship, and in those cases a wet navy will probalby still make a lot of sense.