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.

Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

Both "armies" are human, but in terms of organization, equipment, etc., they could very well be from different worlds. (Which, ironically, most of the IG would be for any PDF.)

 Hawky wrote:
This topic has been discussed roughly a month ago and plenty of people have only little idea how PDF looks like.


The first major difference is that the PDF belongs to the Governor and not to the Munitorum, and if the governor decides to dump enough money into it, they can be better trained and equipped than most regular Guard regiments.
The same applies the other way, resulting in a poorly coherent, undertrained and underequipped fighting force.

The second major difference is that the PDF has gear and training specialized to local conditions. It is nonsense to have heavy tanks on a swampy world, so they develop amphibious vehicles that can easily cross such terrain. Or armored snowcats on an ice world, where regular Russ would get stuck. And so on, you get the idea...

TL;DR The statement "IG with worse training and gear" is not a rule, but a mode (most frequent result),
because the training and gear they get depend solely on the governor and his funding. PDF can be a ragtag bunch of bowmen, almostAstartes and everything in between.

Also on the state, beyond the Personal guard for a governor it is actually pretty sensible to underfund the PDF for reason of a potential Coup.
Remember most worlds are not directly attacked.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

Both "armies" are human, but in terms of organization, equipment, etc., they could very well be from different worlds. (Which, ironically, most of the IG would be for any PDF.)

Not far off it.

You can have 1,000,000 bodies, armed with AK-47s, and get gubbed silly by a foe that has half a dozen high altitude bombers, that are launched from Naval Assets. Simply because they can strike with relative impunity.

It’s something we’ve seen example after example of throughout the history of human conflict. Rome, Egypt, English Longbows, all that sort of stuff. Victory tends (not universally though) to go to those with the best toys and tactics (typically has to be both).

Consider the main turning point of World War 2, the Battle of Britain. Britain had fewer aircraft and pilots. But, Britain had Radar. Something so ubiquitous and pedestrian today was a near insurmountable edge. It allowed the RAF to see the Luftwaffe coming, and hold off launching our own planes until absolutely necessary - then send them straight at the enemy. That saved fuel, and indeed lives. Not only did we know where they were, but when their own fighter Escort would be approaching the point of no return. A numerically superior foe, with arguably better aircraft, undone by a single, passive, technological development.

BTW, this is all stuff I’ve gleaned off the telly without paying particular attention. Apologies if it’s inaccurate. Happy to learn, but perhaps a thread in the OT for my education?

 MinscS2 wrote:
Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

Both "armies" are human, but in terms of organization, equipment, etc., they could very well be from different worlds. (Which, ironically, most of the IG would be for any PDF.)

If you look at each nation of our Earth and their militaries - there will be less comparative variety of size, ability, capability and equipment than the Imperiums PDFs (or Guard regiments)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

Both "armies" are human, but in terms of organization, equipment, etc., they could very well be from different worlds. (Which, ironically, most of the IG would be for any PDF.)

Not far off it.

You can have 1,000,000 bodies, armed with AK-47s, and get gubbed silly by a foe that has half a dozen high altitude bombers, that are launched from Naval Assets. Simply because they can strike with relative impunity.

It’s something we’ve seen example after example of throughout the history of human conflict. Rome, Egypt, English Longbows, all that sort of stuff. Victory tends (not universally though) to go to those with the best toys and tactics (typically has to be both).

Consider the main turning point of World War 2, the Battle of Britain. Britain had fewer aircraft and pilots. But, Britain had Radar. Something so ubiquitous and pedestrian today was a near insurmountable edge. It allowed the RAF to see the Luftwaffe coming, and hold off launching our own planes until absolutely necessary - then send them straight at the enemy. That saved fuel, and indeed lives. Not only did we know where they were, but when their own fighter Escort would be approaching the point of no return. A numerically superior foe, with arguably better aircraft, undone by a single, passive, technological development.

BTW, this is all stuff I’ve gleaned off the telly without paying particular attention. Apologies if it’s inaccurate. Happy to learn, but perhaps a thread in the OT for my education?

Except when conquest is the goal and not anahilation.
Because bombers wont stop the trees speaking vietnamese and bombers didn't stop the snow speaking finish.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

Both "armies" are human, but in terms of organization, equipment, etc., they could very well be from different worlds. (Which, ironically, most of the IG would be for any PDF.)

Not far off it.

You can have 1,000,000 bodies, armed with AK-47s, and get gubbed silly by a foe that has half a dozen high altitude bombers, that are launched from Naval Assets. Simply because they can strike with relative impunity.

It’s something we’ve seen example after example of throughout the history of human conflict. Rome, Egypt, English Longbows, all that sort of stuff. Victory tends (not universally though) to go to those with the best toys and tactics (typically has to be both).

Consider the main turning point of World War 2, the Battle of Britain. Britain had fewer aircraft and pilots. But, Britain had Radar. Something so ubiquitous and pedestrian today was a near insurmountable edge. It allowed the RAF to see the Luftwaffe coming, and hold off launching our own planes until absolutely necessary - then send them straight at the enemy. That saved fuel, and indeed lives. Not only did we know where they were, but when their own fighter Escort would be approaching the point of no return. A numerically superior foe, with arguably better aircraft, undone by a single, passive, technological development.

BTW, this is all stuff I’ve gleaned off the telly without paying particular attention. Apologies if it’s inaccurate. Happy to learn, but perhaps a thread in the OT for my education?

Except when conquest is the goal and not anahilation.
Because bombers wont stop the trees speaking vietnamese and bombers didn't stop the snow speaking finish.

And also because, much as I respect the RAF (and am British) the main turning point of WWII was probably the Soviet Union getting its gak together, which explicitely was a case of "I don't care that your tanks and training are better because I have a thousand more of them than you do..." - and for that matter the turning point of the Battle of Britain was the Luftwaffe deciding to stop bombing the RAF Airfields (which was working) and start bombing London (which didn't), aka "Hitler and Goering are cretins who convinced themselves they are tactical geniuses and have decided to 'help' with strategic planning."

Superior training and tech matters. Most of the time. As Not Online!!! says, bombers big problems is trying to take and hold ground.

Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

It very much depends. There will be cases where it's the reverse - the PDF of any fortress world (like cadia) can equal or outclass the average guard regiment (compare NATO "Militia Forces" like the US State National Guard or UK Territorial Army units to many third world 'regular armies'....)

One thing which is often a signature of PDFs is slug weaponry.

Autoguns, shotguns and heavy stubbers are cheaper and lower tech than equivalent las weapons and about as effective. Their problem is logistics and reliability compared to lasguns - but if you don't have to ship ammo across interstellar space, and any invasion will see you fighting in and around prepared strongpoints where you've spent decades stockpiling ammo and spares, what's the big deal?

locarno24 wrote:
One thing which is often a signature of PDFs is slug weaponry.

Autoguns, shotguns and heavy stubbers are cheaper and lower tech than equivalent las weapons and about as effective. Their problem is logistics and reliability compared to lasguns - but if you don't have to ship ammo across interstellar space, and any invasion will see you fighting in and around prepared strongpoints where you've spent decades stockpiling ammo and spares, what's the big deal?

Yeah, in quite a few books the PDF have weird and interesting stuff not used by the Imperial Guard. I figure sometimes it's because it's cheap junk, sometimes it's great but too expensive, and sometimes the Departmento Munitorum probably doesn't want to deal with the logistical hassle of having to support more weapons and vehicles.

For narrative games I think kitbashing and scratchbuilding custom PDF units would be pretty fun.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

For narrative games I think kitbashing and scratchbuilding custom PDF units would be pretty fun.

I'll have to put that on my back-burner, R&H already takes a lot of kit-bashing and I'm not even halfway done with that army.

Having a PDF army surely offers almost unlimited conversion possibilities, from uniforms, through weapons, vehicles to unit compositions, because it does not fall under the Munitorum's standardization.

Use of locally produced vehicles is very common if the world has the industry needed. Otherwise, they can just call to a nearby Forge World and place an order.

I use them in scenarios. In 40k as pointed units they fall a bit down as IG push the limit of what the game can accommodate in terms of warm bodies. Basically you want your troops to be able to accomplish something and if you cost them as you would others for low ability they get too big a footprint and are simply a tar pit.

The background is the best PDF are basically imperial guard. For example Cadian shock troops or death world regiments. Whether you fight at home or abroad there is little difference. The best worlds have their own storm trooper equivalents as well.

For everyone else the tithe takes the best regiments from a planet and they form bog standard guard regiments which are upgraded with IG gear (stock pattern lasguns, comms, boosters, etc.).

On that basis I like to have them fielded at platoon level. 20-30 men with autoguns and WS/BS4+, Sv6+, LD3. They include in the unit a sergeant with LD4 and a lieutenant (autopistol and sword) with Sv5+, LD5. They can't take orders - in the past I did include orders and had them at WS/BS5+ but it is easier to assume orders are part of the formation from the LT and have them hitting on 4+. The unit can include a mix of up to 3 heavy (missile launcher, heavy stubber, mortar) and special (grenade launcher, sniper rifle, flamer) weapons.

Veteran units are regular guard stats (with autoguns or shotguns) in elite slots with the option to take 1 heavy weapon (missile launcher, heavy stubber, mortar) and up to 3 special weapons (including melta and plasma) and can take orders from independent officers.

Conscripts become militia - 20-30 strong mobs of WS5+/BS5+ sv6+ LD2 with a LD4 leader with a mix of up to 2 special/heavy weapons (flamer, grenade launcher, heavy stubber, mortar).

I tend to use custom armour and static artillery to support them.

They are normally 'part' of the battlespace. So set up on the battlefield for a player to reinforce, or rescue, or fight through on the way to the real objective. It works a lot better in Epic where you can do more of the higher level narrative (and they are faster to paint...) but still they can man trench lines and fill bunkers. The low LD allows them to be rapidly thinned by casualties and snipers to thoroughly demoralize them (represented by the extra casualties they would take).

 Mr Morden wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
You could probably base this entirely on how important the planet is to the imperium.

How dangerous the space and systems are.

And what it produces.

No point to have the guard if no planet can last out long enough for the guard to get there.
So I would say, anywhere tyranids, chaos forces or necrons would by necessity have fantastic PDF or they are dead.

If there had been orc infestations, it would likely be cheaper to equip local forces than sending guard every time there is an outbreak.

yes and no - a rich backwater planet may have a incredably well funded force.

No matter how rich a planet is, it could not match the backing of the imperium. If a single planet is rich, it’s importent for some reason on the grand scheme of the galexy in 40k

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

Both "armies" are human, but in terms of organization, equipment, etc., they could very well be from different worlds. (Which, ironically, most of the IG would be for any PDF.)

Not far off it.

You can have 1,000,000 bodies, armed with AK-47s, and get gubbed silly by a foe that has half a dozen high altitude bombers, that are launched from Naval Assets. Simply because they can strike with relative impunity.

It’s something we’ve seen example after example of throughout the history of human conflict. Rome, Egypt, English Longbows, all that sort of stuff. Victory tends (not universally though) to go to those with the best toys and tactics (typically has to be both).

Consider the main turning point of World War 2, the Battle of Britain. Britain had fewer aircraft and pilots. But, Britain had Radar. Something so ubiquitous and pedestrian today was a near insurmountable edge. It allowed the RAF to see the Luftwaffe coming, and hold off launching our own planes until absolutely necessary - then send them straight at the enemy. That saved fuel, and indeed lives. Not only did we know where they were, but when their own fighter Escort would be approaching the point of no return. A numerically superior foe, with arguably better aircraft, undone by a single, passive, technological development.

BTW, this is all stuff I’ve gleaned off the telly without paying particular attention. Apologies if it’s inaccurate. Happy to learn, but perhaps a thread in the OT for my education?

Alternatively, compare the real turning points of WWII, Stalingrad and Midway . Both sides had huge forces. In Stalingrad the winner had more forces, in Midway nearly equal (less but larger carriers and land based aircraft as well).
Sorry just pulling your chain. I agree with the point of your post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Reading through this topic, I got a mental picture of the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army is comparable to the PDF, and the western powers are comparable to the IG.

Both "armies" are human, but in terms of organization, equipment, etc., they could very well be from different worlds. (Which, ironically, most of the IG would be for any PDF.)

Not far off it.

You can have 1,000,000 bodies, armed with AK-47s, and get gubbed silly by a foe that has half a dozen high altitude bombers, that are launched from Naval Assets. Simply because they can strike with relative impunity.

It’s something we’ve seen example after example of throughout the history of human conflict. Rome, Egypt, English Longbows, all that sort of stuff. Victory tends (not universally though) to go to those with the best toys and tactics (typically has to be both).

Consider the main turning point of World War 2, the Battle of Britain. Britain had fewer aircraft and pilots. But, Britain had Radar. Something so ubiquitous and pedestrian today was a near insurmountable edge. It allowed the RAF to see the Luftwaffe coming, and hold off launching our own planes until absolutely necessary - then send them straight at the enemy. That saved fuel, and indeed lives. Not only did we know where they were, but when their own fighter Escort would be approaching the point of no return. A numerically superior foe, with arguably better aircraft, undone by a single, passive, technological development.

BTW, this is all stuff I’ve gleaned off the telly without paying particular attention. Apologies if it’s inaccurate. Happy to learn, but perhaps a thread in the OT for my education?

Except when conquest is the goal and not anahilation.
Because bombers wont stop the trees speaking vietnamese and bombers didn't stop the snow speaking finish.

Very true. Thus, the PDF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I use them in scenarios. In 40k as pointed units they fall a bit down as IG push the limit of what the game can accommodate in terms of warm bodies. Basically you want your troops to be able to accomplish something and if you cost them as you would others for low ability they get too big a footprint and are simply a tar pit.

The background is the best PDF are basically imperial guard. For example Cadian shock troops or death world regiments. Whether you fight at home or abroad there is little difference. The best worlds have their own storm trooper equivalents as well.

For everyone else the tithe takes the best regiments from a planet and they form bog standard guard regiments which are upgraded with IG gear (stock pattern lasguns, comms, boosters, etc.).

On that basis I like to have them fielded at platoon level. 20-30 men with autoguns and WS/BS4+, Sv6+, LD3. They include in the unit a sergeant with LD4 and a lieutenant (autopistol and sword) with Sv5+, LD5. They can't take orders - in the past I did include orders and had them at WS/BS5+ but it is easier to assume orders are part of the formation from the LT and have them hitting on 4+. The unit can include a mix of up to 3 heavy (missile launcher, heavy stubber, mortar) and special (grenade launcher, sniper rifle, flamer) weapons.

Veteran units are regular guard stats (with autoguns or shotguns) in elite slots with the option to take 1 heavy weapon (missile launcher, heavy stubber, mortar) and up to 3 special weapons (including melta and plasma) and can take orders from independent officers.

Conscripts become militia - 20-30 strong mobs of WS5+/BS5+ sv6+ LD2 with a LD4 leader with a mix of up to 2 special/heavy weapons (flamer, grenade launcher, heavy stubber, mortar).

I tend to use custom armour and static artillery to support them.

They are normally 'part' of the battlespace. So set up on the battlefield for a player to reinforce, or rescue, or fight through on the way to the real objective. It works a lot better in Epic where you can do more of the higher level narrative (and they are faster to paint...) but still they can man trench lines and fill bunkers. The low LD allows them to be rapidly thinned by casualties and snipers to thoroughly demoralize them (represented by the extra casualties they would take).

Indeed. one can use existing codexes and build a PDF. Guard and conversion options for your generic human PDF, all the way up to AM or Tau/eldar for true high tech worlds. One could even run Orks if one wanted with proper conversions.

Consider the main turning point of World War 2, the Battle of Britain. Britain had fewer aircraft and pilots. But, Britain had Radar. Something so ubiquitous and pedestrian today was a near insurmountable edge. It allowed the RAF to see the Luftwaffe coming, and hold off launching our own planes until absolutely necessary - then send them straight at the enemy. That saved fuel, and indeed lives. Not only did we know where they were, but when their own fighter Escort would be approaching the point of no return. A numerically superior foe, with arguably better aircraft, undone by a single, passive, technological development.

BTW, this is all stuff I’ve gleaned off the telly without paying particular attention. Apologies if it’s inaccurate. Happy to learn, but perhaps a thread in the OT for my education?

Alternatively, compare the real turning points of WWII, Stalingrad and Midway . Both sides had huge forces. In Stalingrad the winner had more forces, in Midway nearly equal (less but larger carriers and land based aircraft as well).
Sorry just pulling your chain. I agree with the point of your post.

Welllll... in Stalingrad the Russians credit it to two things, the first being the German command was too distant from the battle, when the Axis forces had momentum on their side they were too slow to exploit several critical incidents, while the Russian commanders where eventually on the front line. As they managed to avoid being sucked into the fight and kept their overview going they managed to blunt the Axis offensive, enabling a corridor for materials in men to flow in to maintain the stalemate whilst army level maneuver around the city won the battle.

The battle of Britain was lost by the Germans changing tactics. The British analysis's believed that is they had maintained their battle against the RAF - in particular the sector airfields and radar stations, the fight would have been near impossible for the UK. Instead the switch to bombing cities and trying to win a morale victory was a complete failure. Both sides had radar but the British used it to create a layered centrally controlled system that could exploit the weakness of the German planes not being strategic bombers (i.e. they had to fly in fuel saving straight lines to their targets) to always make them fight. While they often fought through against outnumbered defenders they lost planes and trained pilots (German pilots if they bailed out or survived crashing ended up prisoners, Allied pilots ended up in new planes). Both sides had advantages - for example the German '2 pair' fighter wing was better than the UK 3 plane wing and the tactic was adopted after the battle (the changing tactics midway being too disruptive), but the change in focus was deemed to be the clincher. Note the pointlessness of the battle though. Even if the Germans had won air superiority what would it have got them? They weren't equipped to invade and lots of the UKs strength was overseas or int he Navy.

The Americans got lucky at Medway (whilst the Japanese had worse carrier operational practices, the US got lucky spotting them first so could exploit it), but really the failure at Pearl Harbour to get the carriers and the subsequent out production of carriers and aircraft meant the Japanese could only have ever won a negotiated draw/truce.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Consider the main turning point of World War 2, the Battle of Britain. Britain had fewer aircraft and pilots. But, Britain had Radar. Something so ubiquitous and pedestrian today was a near insurmountable edge. It allowed the RAF to see the Luftwaffe coming, and hold off launching our own planes until absolutely necessary - then send them straight at the enemy. That saved fuel, and indeed lives. Not only did we know where they were, but when their own fighter Escort would be approaching the point of no return. A numerically superior foe, with arguably better aircraft, undone by a single, passive, technological development.

BTW, this is all stuff I’ve gleaned off the telly without paying particular attention. Apologies if it’s inaccurate. Happy to learn, but perhaps a thread in the OT for my education?

Alternatively, compare the real turning points of WWII, Stalingrad and Midway . Both sides had huge forces. In Stalingrad the winner had more forces, in Midway nearly equal (less but larger carriers and land based aircraft as well).
Sorry just pulling your chain. I agree with the point of your post.

Welllll... in Stalingrad the Russians credit it to two things, the first being the German command was too distant from the battle, when the Axis forces had momentum on their side they were too slow to exploit several critical incidents, while the Russian commanders where eventually on the front line. As they managed to avoid being sucked into the fight and kept their overview going they managed to blunt the Axis offensive, enabling a corridor for materials in men to flow in to maintain the stalemate whilst army level maneuver around the city won the battle.

The battle of Britain was lost by the Germans changing tactics. The British analysis's believed that is they had maintained their battle against the RAF - in particular the sector airfields and radar stations, the fight would have been near impossible for the UK. Instead the switch to bombing cities and trying to win a morale victory was a complete failure. Both sides had radar but the British used it to create a layered centrally controlled system that could exploit the weakness of the German planes not being strategic bombers (i.e. they had to fly in fuel saving straight lines to their targets) to always make them fight. While they often fought through against outnumbered defenders they lost planes and trained pilots (German pilots if they bailed out or survived crashing ended up prisoners, Allied pilots ended up in new planes). Both sides had advantages - for example the German '2 pair' fighter wing was better than the UK 3 plane wing and the tactic was adopted after the battle (the changing tactics midway being too disruptive), but the change in focus was deemed to be the clincher. Note the pointlessness of the battle though. Even if the Germans had won air superiority what would it have got them? They weren't equipped to invade and lots of the UKs strength was overseas or int he Navy.

The Americans got lucky at Medway (whilst the Japanese had worse carrier operational practices, the US got lucky spotting them first so could exploit it), but really the failure at Pearl Harbour to get the carriers and the subsequent out production of carriers and aircraft meant the Japanese could only have ever won a negotiated draw/truce.

The Luftwaffe had no way of forcing a win in the Battle of Britain (which should really be called the Battle of Kent or something along those lines). They had to rely on the RAF making a catastrophic mistake to achieve their goal of wiping out the RAF. The best the Luftwaffe could achieve is a temporary local air superiority over the South East, with no control over most of the UK. The issue is primarily that the range of the 109 was not sufficient to escort beyond a short range in the SE, so most of Britain was a safe haven for repairing aircraft and training pilots. Most of the industry was also protected from daylight bombing by the vulnerability of unescorted bombers, and night bombing was less effective.

Is you look at the numbers, the RAF grew in the number of available airframes over the battle, the Luftwaffe drastically reduced in number. The RAF was growing through most the battle, bar 1 or 2 months IIRC. The biggest issue for the RAF was losing pilots, but this was a far bigger issue for the Luftwaffe. Basically, if the Luftwaffe had maintained attacking the RAF at the intensity it was, it is the Luftwaffe that was going to bleed dry first. At worst, the RAF would have to retreat out of Kent, regroup briefly, then counter attack.

Aside from the range issue, the Luftwaffe was also fighting the RAF on its home turf, which gave the RAF many advantages. The RAF implemented a very effective system for salvaging downed planes and recovering pilots- every Luftwaffe plane shot down was a pilot and airframe lost for sure. The RAF air defense system was the first of its kind in the world, and whilst radar was a major component, it was much more than that. The system had a lot of redundancy and was very resilient- even when the Luftwaffe targeted and knocked out some radar towers, the system was still able to detect incoming attacks through other means (such as their extensive network of forward observers).

Honestly, the Battle of Britain is the biggest mistake the Luftwaffe made. The RAF got stronger during the battle, the Luftwaffe fell from being the most powerful land-based airforce in the world- a position it never regained. The strategic impact of this is massive. My understanding is that most of Germany's oil reserves and high-quality alloys went into the air war over Europe, and the Battle of Britain was the beginning of the process of draining Germany dry of material. Then the Eastern Front drained Germany dry of blood too.

I concur that they couldn't win an air war - but the British analysis at the time though they could win that battle. Yes the UK would have retreated and regrouped its airforce in short order ready for battle 2, but it is what would happen in those few short months that they worried about.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I concur that they couldn't win an air war - but the British analysis at the time though they could win that battle. Yes the UK would have retreated and regrouped its airforce in short order ready for battle 2, but it is what would happen in those few short months that they worried about.

Nothing since the german Navy was not capable of pulling something like that off. Not even maintain superiority to attempt a invasion.

Air supperiority does not allow you to conquer something, not to mention that between your Landmass and their's is a fething channel.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I concur that they couldn't win an air war - but the British analysis at the time though they could win that battle. Yes the UK would have retreated and regrouped its airforce in short order ready for battle 2, but it is what would happen in those few short months that they worried about.

I agree that the UK thought there was a real danger- they overestimated the strength of the Luftwaffe. Likewise, the German intelligence underestimated the strength of the RAF.

The Royal Navy wasn't too worried though, they felt they could stop an invasion fleet In addition, the south of England was incredibly heavily fortified with layered defences, booby traps, obstacles, sleeper cells of saboteurs etc. There were bunkers disguised as corner shops and fougasses under every crossroads Even if a force had landed, it would have no easy time advancing with extremely poor resupply and poor air cover (Luftwaffe had too many jobs in a hypothetical landing- keeping the RAF at bay, tactically supporting a force that will be light in armoured units and artillery, and keeping the Royal Navy at bay. It justcwasn't big enough to do all three at once, especially after the Battle of Britain). The channel is also a notoriously treacherous waterway, the barges that Germany was collecting were totally unsuited to crossing it.

If Operation Sealion had gone ahead, it would've shortened the war in the Allies' favour.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The PDF can be as varied as the guard. Some worlds will have lavishly equipped PDF's on par with the best of the Imperial Guard. Others may be little more than barely organized tribal warriors or peasant conscripts or anything else, they'll reflect the world of their origin.

Most commonly, they won't be as well equipped or supplied or quite as well led simply because they have to do all that on their own instead of relying on the vast resources, data, and experience of the Munitorum, and generally look like 2nd rate Guard regiments.

That is what I was going to say.

Just to add to that...

As a generally extreme case, but on Forgeworlds they have skitarii and knights stationed as their planetary defense forces. And another example, on planets like Cadia (used to be), there were permanently stationed Imperial Guard acting as planetary defense forces. So while its very easy to hand wave PDF's as just really basic militia without any real combat ability, Planetary defense forces are really a catch all for a particular use case, and not necessarily the actual forces being used.

In broad strokes, the PDF are whatever military forces a planet or sub-system has that the Imperium doesn't take as a tithe. It does tend to be militia forces, vehicles antiquated even by IG standards, retired veterans, and then what ever personal elite forces are under the immediate employment of the planetary governor or nobility.

I think a person can get a sense of it by looking at the 30k Militia and Solar Auxilia rules... that covers those two extremes with a little bit in between. If you take those rules and strip out the proto-Imperial Guard elements, I think you have a good sense of what the average planet is left with to defend itself.
Obviously the worlds more famous for supplying a steady stream of soldiers to the Imperial Guard, likely retain in their PDF units and organization very much like the Imperial Guard.

I think it'd be fun to build an army around the theme, but I think if you were willing to impose restrictions on yourself and incorporated FW units it wouldn't be too hard to use the Imperial Guard codex as a starting point... The first point would be to build an Imperial Guard army without any basic Imperial Guardsmen. A block of conscripts making out the bulk, while units like veterans and storm troopers would be available but limited. I think you'd see few if any Commissars, but probably more Priests. Aircraft would be limited, you'd likely use Arvus lighters instead of Valkyries. If you're playing the PDF of a particularly well off or important world... defense turrets would make up for a lack of heavy weapons. Fortifications in general should be used. You could probably include a hefty number of snipers. You might use the rules for Centaurs and Tauros to represent a greater variety of light or re-purposed vehicles. Rapiers were another FW model, that in its pre-FW day was described as weapon largely used by PDFs.

With regards to operation sealion - the Navy wargamers believed they could defeat any seaborn invasion, but without aircover they would take heavy losses.

Now you deeply off into the what if world... Germany doesn't have the manpower to invade Russia anymore, bad news for the allies. If Germany can recover their U-boat forces enough the battle of the Atlantic is different proposition given the Royal navy losses. Yes they can strip assets out of the east to save the UK, but what then of Asia?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
It does tend to be militia forces, vehicles antiquated even by IG standards, retired veterans, and then what ever personal elite forces are under the immediate employment of the planetary governor or nobility.

Just to add, they could actually have superior equipment to the guard. The guard has equipment suited to interstellar logistics. Tanks that require more maintenance and more complex ammunition are possible, they can only really be supplied on a planetary basis. Of course it means when the guard attacks such places they hammer those facilities...

EpicA actually had a stab at a PDF army with the Baran Siegemasters. Ragnarock tanks instead of Russ, armoured tracotrs as light tanks, heavy stubbers instead of autocannon, etc. You could make it look more retro by replacing modern models with the awful blocky cheap looking 2nd edition Epic stuff.

Was also my biggest fluffing it when doing army design...

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Just to add, they could actually have superior equipment to the guard. The guard has equipment suited to interstellar logistics. Tanks that require more maintenance and more complex ammunition are possible, they can only really be supplied on a planetary basis. Of course it means when the guard attacks such places they hammer those facilities...

The 40k universe isn't a setting that makes sense, but when we know certain weapons and advance technologies exist within the Imperium... we can except "well the Imperial Guard wouldn't waste tech like that"... but a PDF's small cadre of elites that serve as a Governor's bodyguards could easily end up with everything from void hardened carapace and hot-shot-ed triplex lasguns to lesser forms of Spyrer suits. Obviously random-Agri-world #787889's PDF would have nothing of the sort, but the larger hive worlds like Necromunda... its hard to imagine Necromunda with only the fodder people typically think of when it comes to the PDF. While deficient in some ways, the militia could easily end up more dangerous than the standard Guardsmen.

 aka_mythos wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Just to add, they could actually have superior equipment to the guard. The guard has equipment suited to interstellar logistics. Tanks that require more maintenance and more complex ammunition are possible, they can only really be supplied on a planetary basis. Of course it means when the guard attacks such places they hammer those facilities...

The 40k universe isn't a setting that makes sense, but when we know certain weapons and advance technologies exist within the Imperium... we can except "well the Imperial Guard wouldn't waste tech like that"... but a PDF's small cadre of elites that serve as a Governor's bodyguards could easily end up with everything from void hardened carapace and hot-shot-ed triplex lasguns to lesser forms of Spyrer suits. Obviously random-Agri-world #787889's PDF would have nothing of the sort, but the larger hive worlds like Necromunda... its hard to imagine Necromunda with only the fodder people typically think of when it comes to the PDF. While deficient in some ways, the militia could easily end up more dangerous than the standard Guardsmen.

Plus they are fighting on home turf with prepared defences/battle strategies. A PDF potentially has been slowly improving fortifications for ten thousand years!

I don't want to end people's conversation, but I feel WWII discussion should probably be moved to an off-topic forum

The main differences between the PDF and IG, at least in the fluff is their training, most elite PDF soldiers are taken by the IG, only the old, weak, young are left to station duties.

IG's Ld is 7 average, PDF would be around 4-5; IG tend to have better overall equipment, but there are always exceptions, so a few PDF squads may have better salvages than the lower end of the IG equipment.

Tactics used by the IG, sometimes can be rather historic, like the dkok, but if you put PDF in their place, they would rout in the first day if not hrs.