PDA

View Full Version : Poor Guardsmen



MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 00:23
Something that I have noticed about the Imperial Guard, particularly rank and file guardsmen.

It seems as though guardsmen are often portrayed as pathetic and incompetent, not usually by the fluff, but by people who play 40k.

In my mind, most guardsmen are quite capable as soldiers. I think that the idea that they are anything other than good soldiers comes from the context in which they are found. In the 41st millenium, guardsmen face off against:
7 and half foot tall super soldiers who ally themselves with daemons.

Soulless machines which have no purpose other than to erase life.

Warhungry savages who are bigger and stronger than any guardsman.

Technologically advanced aliens who have turned warfare into a true art.

and unfeeling monsters whose numbers swamp entire systems in a storm of claws, fangs, and bio weapons.

Against foes like that, guardsmen may run into some problems, however, take a squad of guardsmen against a squad of modern-day US Marines and the guard will win.

In game terms, I feel like the guardsman is the single most Average troop choice in the game. This post is convoluted and ridiculous, but I want the brave soldiers of the imperial guard (particularly my 7th Macragge Infantry) to be represented fairly.

Felwether
12-08-2008, 00:36
They are represented fairly. You pretty much answered yourself with your post.
Guardsmen are the single most average troops in the game because, well:


In the 41st millenium, guardsmen face off against:
7 and half foot tall super soldiers who ally themselves with daemons.

Soulless machines which have no purpose other than to erase life.

Warhungry savages who are bigger and stronger than any guardsman.

Technologically advanced aliens who have turned warfare into a true art.

and unfeeling monsters whose numbers swamp entire systems in a storm of claws, fangs, and bio weapons.



EDIT: That's not to say they're not highly skilled and well drilled though. At the end of the day however, They're only human.

Chem-Dog
12-08-2008, 00:37
Unfortunately, to do that, you need GW to release half a dozen armies that have worse stats than the guard, T2, Ws and Bs 2. But you're right, the IG are tough hombres.

Chilltouch
12-08-2008, 00:46
Space Marines are considered the "average" army despite the fact they're superhuman just because they're the most common army. Then you look at Imperial Guard - oh look! They all look like humans as well, except they're really week compared to the basic units of the average army. So, the Imperial Guard get swatted away and declared to be flashlight-carrying cardboard-wearing weaklings.

Felwether
12-08-2008, 00:51
Eh? I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Space Marines as the 'Average' army just because they're the most common. They're the best all-rounders in the game if that's what you mean but I doubt anyone would call them average...

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 00:54
Chem-dog, in terms of averageness (I know it isnt a word) Tau generally are terrible in close combat but have exceptional weapons. Orks have a hideous ballistic skill and save but are great in close combat. Guardsmen are average in all areas. guardsmen can trash fire warriors in close combat but get wrecked by orks. guardsmen can get shot to pieces by tau, yet they can turn orks into swiss cheese. thats what I mean by average. They arent the best at anything, but they arent the worst at anything either.

Also: Marines are high-powered elite troops. The one thing they have working against them is numbers. They can be outnumbered by practically every army in the game, even necrons. so while marines are the best all-round troops, a guardsmen is the most average.

Felwether
12-08-2008, 00:58
Eh... That's true.

Khaine's Messenger
12-08-2008, 01:14
Most of the people who think of Guard as worthless generally append their opinions with rhetoric to an effect reminiscent of discussions about WWII Russian infantry. I've never run into anyone who thought the Guard were worthless. Incompetant, perhaps, and poorly equipped, sure, but balanced by the understanding that one should never underestimate the power of stupid people with guns in large numbers. If you layer on a level of nearly unbreakable patriotism and make them out to be viciously competant on top of that, then you have to really appreciate how terrible their enemies have to be in order to compete.

So I can't say I've ever overheard anyone who thinks of the Guard as pathetic or weak. Incompetant, maybe, but the sort of incompetance that's justified by the fact that their strategies and tactics still work. About the only thing I've heard against them is just that some people like to believe their "fight" makes a difference. And while some Guard regiments/actions do make a difference, a lot of the background for the Guard is built upon the assumption that they are the faceless mass that keeps the Imperium together. The Guard command structure is largely ignorant of a lot of the Deeper Mysteries of 40k, and its footsoldiers even more so. It was once the case that Guard regiments were killed to a man after certain battles for fear of contamination. Some people just don't for that sort of thing and want to live to enjoy the accolades for being a hero.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 01:34
I guess there are different types of incompetence as well. Look at the orks, they are comically incompetent, but oftentimes, the sheer ridiculousness of the Orks is what brings them victory. Guard seem like the truly incompetent soldiers die a hell of a lot faster than the capable ones who in my mind are the ones on the tabletop.

DapperAnarchist
12-08-2008, 02:12
Yeah, with IG its harder to go "my army is vital to the future of the 41st millenium cos they know all the secrets of Chaos and the Deciever and the Tyranids and they know the Emperor's real name. Its Maurice.". Which I feel to be a good thing.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 02:59
lol Maurice! I bet the emperors real name is something like that. Some guardsmen I almost wish were incompetent. Mordian Iron Guard and the Vostroyans. I hate those guys.

Lionsbane
12-08-2008, 04:07
Against foes like that, guardsmen may run into some problems, however, take a squad of guardsmen against a squad of modern-day US Marines and the guard will win.

Average Guard squad against average modern troops, not a chance in hell. Guard are similarly armed and equipped, if anything modern troops are better equipped. After that its a matter of training and doctrine. Guard are trained to be used in masses, and i deliberatly meant used. They are a resource to be expended on the 40k battlefield. Modern troops are just far better trained and their doctrine is far far more relavant to squad tactics.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 04:32
Ok, also to be considered are the regiment of guard in question. Cadians would not win that fight. Catachans are another story. However, consider the presence of weapons such as plasma and flamers.

Logarithm Udgaur
12-08-2008, 05:05
Ok, also to be considered are the regiment of guard in question. Cadians would not win that fight. Catachans are another story. However, consider the presence of weapons such as plasma and flamers.
You mean the gun that kills whoever uses it, and the flamethower, such as those used in the Great Wars?
Not that I think the modern (3M) troops would win. The vast majority of troops today would flee from any of the battles IG face on a daily basis.

legio mortis
12-08-2008, 05:15
Guard are similarly armed and equipped, if anything modern troops are better equipped.
Prove it. At any given time, a Guardsmen is expected to carry around 2000 shots worth of ammunition for his lasgun. Flak partitions can take point blank shots from bolt action weapons.



They are a resource to be expended on the 40k battlefield.
As is any fighting force that we have today. It's one of the cold facts of war. Why do you think that an attacking force, as a rule, needs to have at least a 3:1 advantage in numbers?



Modern troops are just far better trained and their doctrine is far far more relavant to squad tactics.
And you have proof of this...where?


Ok, also to be considered are the regiment of guard in question. Cadians would not win that fight.
:wtf: Are you serious? The average Cadian soldier would make a US Marine wet himself, they're that hard. They're bred specifically to kill things.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 05:19
Legio, in retrospect, you are right, and in further retrospect, I was right to start lol. I was attempting to be diplomatic.

Ghost Of Caliban
12-08-2008, 05:24
Average Guard squad against average modern troops, not a chance in hell. Guard are similarly armed and equipped, if anything modern troops are better equipped. After that its a matter of training and doctrine. Guard are trained to be used in masses, and i deliberatly meant used. They are a resource to be expended on the 40k battlefield. Modern troops are just far better trained and their doctrine is far far more relavant to squad tactics.

You must be joking.
Any arguments of modern day Vs 40k are absolutely retarded and to say that modern marines or army troops could take on IG is just laughable.
Guard soldiers are harder by far than anything we've ever produced because they have to be.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 05:28
what we have in real life are citizen soldiers. they enlist, serve their tour of duty, and then go home (usually) In 40k, they are born and raised to be soldiers. It is not a profession, its a way of life.

Fideru
12-08-2008, 05:42
:s I don't see modern troops being better than guardsmen. Never-mind we don't have to fight daemons and such to compare, but, Guardsmen, as said by MarinesInSpace, it's a way of life for them, bred to be soldiers.

Don't know how our modern army would do against lasguns, Hydra flak tanks, Leman Russes (Imagine an Executioner versus a modern tank! May be useless on tabletop but oh boy! I'd pay to see that), Baneblade (and variants) etc. etc.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 05:55
Imagine the Baneblade against modern tanks! HOO BOY that would be a hell of a show

Logarithm Udgaur
12-08-2008, 06:53
Prove it.
Being that one of these combatants does not exist, that is pretty impossible, though I expect people will try anyway.

bosstroll
12-08-2008, 07:26
Imagine the Baneblade against modern tanks! HOO BOY that would be a hell of a show

Pretty damn short show, n'est pas ? ;)

Imperialis_Dominatus
12-08-2008, 08:06
Yeah, with IG its harder to go "my army is vital to the future of the 41st millenium cos they know all the secrets of Chaos and the Deciever and the Tyranids and they know the Emperor's real name. Its Maurice.". Which I feel to be a good thing.

But they are vital to the Imperium's survival.

And his name is Tracy... check out Lastie's P*R*I*M*A*R*C*H*S for more revelations.


:wtf: Are you serious? The average Cadian soldier would make a US Marine wet himself, they're that hard. They're bred specifically to kill things.

Arr. And I add also what I said before. You can find it in Legio's sig.

mongoosedog300
12-08-2008, 08:11
Average Guard squad against average modern troops, not a chance in hell. Guard are similarly armed and equipped, if anything modern troops are better equipped. After that its a matter of training and doctrine. Guard are trained to be used in masses, and i deliberatly meant used. They are a resource to be expended on the 40k battlefield. Modern troops are just far better trained and their doctrine is far far more relavant to squad tactics.

I'm pretty sure that the basic Imperial Guardsman has much more basic training than a basic modern soldier (around 60 days for a guardsman, compared to 28 (in australia anyway) days for a modern soldier). The Elite (stormtroopers) are also better trained, being trained in the....soldier...training school thing (the name escapes me) since a very young age.

Uber Scroober
12-08-2008, 08:17
lol Maurice! I bet the emperors real name is something like that. Some guardsmen I almost wish were incompetent. Mordian Iron Guard and the Vostroyans. I hate those guys.

Those are the two IG armies i dislike LOL

Adra
12-08-2008, 09:01
Unfortunately, to do that, you need GW to release half a dozen armies that have worse stats than the guard, T2, Ws and Bs 2. But you're right, the IG are tough hombres.

The imperial guard have wiped all such races from existance. Now only the hard as nails buggers remain.

Training and quality of guard to our troops is very hard to define, but the one truth is this: Imperial Guard see alot of combat and have to harden very quickly to the horrors of war. The best trained soldiers on earth, whoever you think they are, dont see wars like that and are just plain not as hardened as Imperial guard. That would make a big difference, nothing like having to fight to stay alive for years on end to make you a good soldier.

silence
12-08-2008, 09:05
I'm really not so sure that the IG infantry are better equipt than some of the best infantry around today, especially if you look ahead just 5 years. Guns that shoot around corners, smart ammunition that tracks the target for you, fire and forget anti tank weapons, thermal/night vision sights (typical guard appear to have only iron sights), individual HUDs for each soldier.

The list goes on, I belive that the very best modern soldier is better equipt than the IG.

As for who is harder, I don't know, the IG are recruited from so many worlds and cultures a direct comparison is difficult. For the sake of argument though I'd say that any trooper from the modeled regiments would be harder than the average modern citizen soldier.

However this leads me to a further question, with such a variety of regiments. What is a typical guardsman? Is there even such a thing?

heretics bane
12-08-2008, 11:50
Imagine the Baneblade against modern tanks! HOO BOY that would be a hell of a show

Wouldnt be much of a fight, just a large boom followed by it raining tank parts....

As for the toughness of guardys, Cadian shock troops are the very best the imperium has to offer(on a large scale) and would rightly rip Marines,delta forces etc. to pieces to bother.

The Guy
12-08-2008, 12:12
Right, so you have in this corner a standard military firearm.
In the other corner you have a lasgun.
Watch the [Let's call it M4 carbine, only modern gun I know] shoot a bloke, quick burst and he's down, a few bullet wounds in his chest.

Now watch the lasgun shoot someone, one shot and half of his chest has just been incinerated.

Where the M4 carbine makes the bloke bleed and make a mess everywhere, the lasgun usally cauterises [right word? :confused:] the wound making a clean kill.

Then you have armour, AFAIK most modern militaries don't give you armour slabs strapped to your body that can stop a las shot.

And that's only short term fighting...

ChrisMurray
12-08-2008, 13:20
If the IG were to face off against modern military they'd be so many IG, we could (hopefully) kill thousands a day and they'd still be more.

But it'd nether come to that, they'd just bomb us from orbit.

Sai-Lauren
12-08-2008, 13:36
Something that I have noticed about the Imperial Guard, particularly rank and file guardsmen.

It seems as though guardsmen are often portrayed as pathetic and incompetent, not usually by the Fluff, but by people who play 40k.

In my mind, most guardsmen are quite capable as soldiers. I think that the idea that they are anything other than good soldiers comes from the context in which they are found. In the 41st millenium, guardsmen face off against:
7 and half foot tall super soldiers who ally themselves with daemons.

Soulless machines which have no purpose other than to erase life.

Warhungry savages who are bigger and stronger than any guardsman.

Technologically advanced aliens who have turned warfare into a true art.

and unfeeling monsters whose numbers swamp entire systems in a storm of claws, fangs, and bio weapons.

Against foes like that, guardsmen may run into some problems, however, take a squad of guardsmen against a squad of modern-day US Marines and the guard will win.

In game terms, I feel like the guardsman is the single most Average troop choice in the game. This post is convoluted and ridiculous, but I want the brave soldiers of the imperial guard (particularly my 7th Macragge Infantry) to be represented fairly.

That's all true.

But rather than using guardsmen as the standard comparison point for all the 40k races, use Marines instead.

After all, GW do... :rolleyes:



Eh? I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Space Marines as the 'Average' army just because they're the most common. They're the best all-rounders in the game if that's what you mean but I doubt anyone would call them average...

Marines are the yardstick by which everything since 2nd edition has been measured (RT was at least somewhat based on normal humans, at least originally anyway) - the problem is that if you scored every army on the various aspects that make up their army (survivabilty, shooting, melee, morale and so on) out of 10, even vanilla Marines would be at 7s and 8s across the board, whilst everyone else would maybe have one or two 8 or 9s, a couple of 6s and 7s, and most of the rest at 4s and 5s.

As for the rest, I don't think we need yet another 40k Imperium vs real-world armies thread...

DapperAnarchist
12-08-2008, 13:57
But they are vital to the Imperium's survival.

And his name is Tracy... check out Lastie's P*R*I*M*A*R*C*H*S for more revelations.



yeah, I know. that's what's great about them. It just, though the IG are the real ground force of the Imperium, any single regiment is irrelevant. So the player can't say his army matters more than yours because of all the secrets he's explained away in his fluff.

You never see a take over when you're inside it :angel:

Koryphaus
12-08-2008, 14:19
what we have in real life are citizen soldiers. they enlist, serve their tour of duty, and then go home (usually) In 40k, they are born and raised to be soldiers. It is not a profession, its a way of life.

Too much of a generalisation. Sure, some worlds such as Cadia are like you say, but there are plenty that are much like our modern day forces. Eg, many regiments serve their tour of duty, and then they are allowed to retire, many going home, some joining explorator fleets etc.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 16:18
That seems like it would be true more for a PDF rather than a dedicated IG regiment.

bassmasterliam
12-08-2008, 16:25
but there are like billions of guards so it kinda evens out.

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 16:27
I would actually guess something more like trillions in the long run.

Temmy
12-08-2008, 16:42
I always liked to think of the "typical" imperial guard as being a kind of stereotype of the worst aspects of the old soviet military. I see em as being a cumbersome mass of poorly trained ill equipped conscripts kept in line by merciless commissars and burdened down by a rigid and centralized command structure. They would die like flies and win through on firepower sheer brute force. Since the imperial guard is so massive, there would be exceptions, but in any long campaign far from home, all regiments would end up looking and fighting the same in the end.

Bloodknight
12-08-2008, 16:46
(around 60 days for a guardsman, compared to 28 (in australia anyway) days for a modern soldier)

German conscripts today get 2 months of basic and 4 months of advanced training; when I was there, it was still 3 months of basic ;). Weapon drill, marching, camo, tactics and so on.


Mordian Iron Guard and the Vostroyans. I hate those guys.

The Iron Guardsman is in my eyes the epitome of the Imperial Guard. He looks fearlessly into the enemy's eyes, is disciplined beyond measure, and faithful enough to not rely on camouflage. He marches on in a hedge of bayonets and wins through pure stubbornness. (According to the fluff. In-game they got some silly doctrines that do not reflect their background at all - not even Iron Discipline).

In today's standards they are silly, but so are Space Marines in bright armour with yellow tanks ;).

For me, this silliness from a realism perspective is what makes 40K so great.

legio mortis
12-08-2008, 17:26
Guns that shoot around corners,
A specialist weapon that hasn't even finished the testing stage. It's not like they're all that widespread.



smart ammunition that tracks the target for you,
Of course they have it. From Hunter-Killers to normal Krak missiles to Executioner shotgun rounds.



fire and forget anti tank weapons,
Look above.



thermal/night vision sights (typical guard appear to have only iron sights),
Have you even looked at a lasgun? Just about none of them have iron sights, it's all some sort of optics. Not even to mention stuff like low-light and photo-optics.



individual HUDs for each soldier.
Modern soldiers today don't have their own HUDs. On the other hand, a Guardsmen with bionic eyes just might.


I'm pretty sure that the basic Imperial Guardsman has much more basic training than a basic modern soldier (around 60 days for a guardsman, compared to 28 (in australia anyway) days for a modern soldier). The Elite (stormtroopers) are also better trained, being trained in the....soldier...training school thing (the name escapes me) since a very young age.
Basic? The normal tithed Guardsman is already a trained soldier when he joins the Guard. Everything else afterwards is environmental training and honing his skills.

Rabid Bunny 666
12-08-2008, 17:36
Guard may be weaker than evey army troopswise, but they've got the stones to go up againt any gribbly the Galaxy throws at them in cardboard armour and a BB Gun :D

Lord Cook
12-08-2008, 18:38
Just remember americans as they are trying to take over the world whereas IG are trying to take over the galaxy.

Can we avoid the inevitable politics? It's only likely to either a) get deleted, or b) get this entire thread sent to P&R.


but there are like billions of guards so it kinda evens out.

As MarinesInSpace said, it's almost certainly trillions.


I see em as being a cumbersome mass of poorly trained ill equipped conscripts

Well we know guardsmen are neither poorly trained nor poorly equipped, by and large.

Corn Berserker
12-08-2008, 19:46
I'm pretty sure that the basic Imperial Guardsman has much more basic training than a basic modern soldier (around 60 days for a guardsman, compared to 28 (in australia anyway) days for a modern soldier). The Elite (stormtroopers) are also better trained, being trained in the....soldier...training school thing (the name escapes me) since a very young age.

24 weeks for british infantry, 14 weeks for rest of army, including clerks and chefs. Take that IG!

heretics bane
12-08-2008, 21:20
Okay lets wrap this up.

Guards men only look bad because every other armie out there are aliens or super humans(space marines etc.) so comparing them to a normal human with a(by standard) ordinary weapon and armour is to be frank pretty stupid.

The Guardys have some of the best tanks to add in the mix which nobody has mentioned that Guards just dont aimless run at the enemy, stormtroopes are dropped behind enemy lines,massive tanks batter the battlements,ships blast from the outer atmosphere followed by wave after wave of guardys.

And isnt alot of the warfare in fluff mostly trench warfare? Until someone calls in space marines or a massive orbital strike its pretty much just sitting about charging and fighting in the trenchs are ruined hives.

Guardsmen the true heros of the Imperium

MarinesInSpace
12-08-2008, 21:24
later tonight, my heroic guardsmen of the 7th Macragge regiment are going up against my brothers filthy tau. I'm looking forward to some major heroics.

DapperAnarchist
12-08-2008, 23:53
Too much of a generalisation. Sure, some worlds such as Cadia are like you say, but there are plenty that are much like our modern day forces. Eg, many regiments serve their tour of duty, and then they are allowed to retire, many going home, some joining explorator fleets etc.

In some fluff, no IG regiment returns home from a campaign. Ever. Just won't happen. Thats intended to make them fight for their new home, or reassure the Chemdogs they won't go back to Savlar. Conquering regiments gain rights of settlement, becoming the new nobility of a world.

DarkMatter2
13-08-2008, 01:12
The thing that makes the Guard look bad is that 40k is geared towards smaller skirmish engagements.

This sort of setup makes the Space Marines look good.

In order to get a true appreciation of the power of the Imperial Guard, you would need to scale the game up to beyond EPIC scale, and then you would see the IG's baneblades, squadrons of Russ tanks, titans, bombers and fighters, etc. combined with the millions and millions and millions of infantrymen.

Is the Guardsman as effective a soldier as the vast majority of the enemies he faces? No. Are there thousands of Guardsmen for every enemy he faces? Usually, unless its the Orks or Tyranids.

All of that doesn't mean that the Guardsmen are bad soldiers or incompetent, just that they are in a hard line of work.

Also I think debates between "Modern" military tech and 40k tech are not just stupid but pointless. 40k is about presenting an image of a dark grim future, which draws on history like the Russian army in WWII etc. It isn't supposed to really be a viable futuretech setup - its all about imagery and feel.

Marines would be, in large part, irrelevant on the strategic scale. The Imperial Guard is what wins the Imperium's battles.

Knight_Yellow
13-08-2008, 01:32
Can i just add that whoever said that a lasgun wound is worse than a modern bullet wound needs to rethink that position.

A lasgun wound cortorises the wound and stops the wounded victim from bleeding to death, unless you get hit full on in the chest or the face you are going to live.

A modern bullet round not only causes horrofic damage to the actual outside wound but its flight path through the human body rips and tears organs and veins into confetti, if you get hit in the chest or head you are pretty much dead and even a limb hit will render you wounded beyond action and you will need to seek medical aid before you bleed to death (all the while needing to remove any debris that gets into the wound in the mean time or put a clamp on any major arteries that have been hit.

So why are the guard armed with less effective guns? i hear you cry....

Because its a hell of a lot easier to ship 200,000 lasguns and enough rechargable powercells than shipping 200,000 rifles, spare barrels, stocks, springs, lubricants and ammo (ammo that is finite).

Zephyr_Azure
13-08-2008, 01:47
Can i just add that whoever said that a lasgun wound is worse than a modern bullet wound needs to rethink that position.

A lasgun wound cortorises the wound and stops the wounded victim from bleeding to death, unless you get hit full on in the chest or the face you are going to live.

A modern bullet round not only causes horrofic damage to the actual outside wound but its flight path through the human body rips and tears organs and veins into confetti, if you get hit in the chest or head you are pretty much dead and even a limb hit will render you wounded beyond action and you will need to seek medical aid before you bleed to death (all the while needing to remove any debris that gets into the wound in the mean time or put a clamp on any major arteries that have been hit.

So why are the guard armed with less effective guns? i hear you cry....

Because its a hell of a lot easier to ship 200,000 lasguns and enough rechargable powercells than shipping 200,000 rifles, spare barrels, stocks, springs, lubricants and ammo (ammo that is finite). You are correct in saying the lasgun cauterizes the wound. But you are incorrect in saying bullets are stronger against targets. True, bullets cause horrendous damage to objects in its flight path, and being shot would cause you to bleed out fairly soon and also shrapnel/debris bits.

The lasgun is an evolution beyond that. The lasbolt may cauterize the wound....but it simply burned and singed through everything in its path. All organs in the way will be heated up, burned and singed beyond recognition, and turn flesh into a charred mess. As cited from lexicanum:

Lasweapons emit a highly focused beam of light. The short duration high energy beam produces such a rapid temperature change on the target's surface that it vaporises in a small explosion.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Las_Weapons

A miniature explosion impacting the target is much more devastating than a bullet. There would be nothing left to bleed from since half your chest is now gone, vaporized by the heat.


The lasgun operates in the same basic way as the more compact laspistol, emitting a beam of focused light. It is a relatively un-devastating weapon when compared to many other weapons of 40K, but is capable of cleanly severing limbs and potentially even piercing the power armour of a Space Marine (but usually only through a vulnerable spot in the armour).

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Lasgun

Again...capable of cleanly severing limbs. Bullets can too i believe, but the caliber has to be quite high. Usually find those on sniper rifles. This lasgun is a standard infantry-weapon and already has the capabilities of blowing off a limb.

icegreentea
13-08-2008, 01:49
Can i just add that whoever said that a lasgun wound is worse than a modern bullet wound needs to rethink that position.

A lasgun wound cortorises the wound and stops the wounded victim from bleeding to death, unless you get hit full on in the chest or the face you are going to live.

A modern bullet round not only causes horrofic damage to the actual outside wound but its flight path through the human body rips and tears organs and veins into confetti, if you get hit in the chest or head you are pretty much dead and even a limb hit will render you wounded beyond action and you will need to seek medical aid before you bleed to death (all the while needing to remove any debris that gets into the wound in the mean time or put a clamp on any major arteries that have been hit.

So why are the guard armed with less effective guns? i hear you cry....

Because its a hell of a lot easier to ship 200,000 lasguns and enough rechargable powercells than shipping 200,000 rifles, spare barrels, stocks, springs, lubricants and ammo (ammo that is finite).

Actually, if you laser pulses instead of one big boom, you can do a lot better.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3l.html#laserpistol
By pulsing like mad, you create a lot of micro explosions when the water vapourizes. You time your pulses so the steam clears enough to not block the next pulse. As a result, the area around the point of impact is going to be undergoing extreme pressures as it expands and contracts, rupturing blood vessels. So you can still get a messy wound.

The Guy
13-08-2008, 17:58
Can i just add that whoever said that a lasgun wound is worse than a modern bullet wound needs to rethink that position.

A lasgun wound cortorises the wound and stops the wounded victim from bleeding to death, unless you get hit full on in the chest or the face you are going to live.

A modern bullet round not only causes horrofic damage to the actual outside wound but its flight path through the human body rips and tears organs and veins into confetti, if you get hit in the chest or head you are pretty much dead and even a limb hit will render you wounded beyond action and you will need to seek medical aid before you bleed to death (all the while needing to remove any debris that gets into the wound in the mean time or put a clamp on any major arteries that have been hit.

So why are the guard armed with less effective guns? i hear you cry....

Because its a hell of a lot easier to ship 200,000 lasguns and enough rechargable powercells than shipping 200,000 rifles, spare barrels, stocks, springs, lubricants and ammo (ammo that is finite).

But you will take severe blood loss being shot by a lasgun. The heat alone would evaporate your blood in that big hole. Also as said before a vital organ that gets hit is rendered irrepariable because most of that has evaporated. About 70% of the human body is water [I think] which hypothetically means that 70% of that wound is not coming back. The 30% left is too singed to be of any use, bullets just make a hole in things with a little risk of lead poisoning.

Also it may set your clothes on fire, causing any explosive you are carrying to detonate etc.

Duckdude
13-08-2008, 18:37
Imagine the Baneblade against modern tanks! HOO BOY that would be a hell of a show

The baneblade would be toast... The baneblade has a gigantic cannon mounten in its hull, so it can only fire forward. A modern tank would most likely shoot the track of the baneblade then just outmanouver it.

As for modern soldiers vs imperial guard, i would say the imperial guard would win But not because of their tanks, that would be for sure (the wh40k tanks looks like pre ww2 tanks, accept it). A m1a2 is 120mm smoothbore cannon, and the leman russ is a 120mm smootbore, so in firepower they would be pretty equal (of course the emperor knows what the leman russ shell is loaded with, but still).

Hope i did not offend anyone.

Ps: i got the fact about the leman russ 120mm from the white dwarf armoured regiment thingy.

Edit:

But you will take severe blood loss being shot by a lasgun. The heat alone would evaporate your blood in that big hole.

In Chiaphas cain: For the emperor it is stated that the lasgun would evaporate the wound therefor not making it bleed, therefor it is not very dangerous getting glanced by a lasgun.

icegreentea
13-08-2008, 19:13
The baneblade would be toast... The baneblade has a gigantic cannon mounten in its hull, so it can only fire forward. A modern tank would most likely shoot the track of the baneblade then just outmanouver it.

As for modern soldiers vs imperial guard, i would say the imperial guard would win But not because of their tanks, that would be for sure (the wh40k tanks looks like pre ww2 tanks, accept it). A m1a2 is 120mm smoothbore cannon, and the leman russ is a 120mm smootbore, so in firepower they would be pretty equal (of course the emperor knows what the leman russ shell is loaded with, but still).

Hope i did not offend anyone.

Ps: i got the fact about the leman russ 120mm from the white dwarf armoured regiment thingy.

Edit:


In Chiaphas cain: For the emperor it is stated that the lasgun would evaporate the wound therefor not making it bleed, therefor it is not very dangerous getting glanced by a lasgun.

Leman Russ would probably get destroyed by Modern Tanks, unless they've developed some armor 10x as potent as today's (vaguely possible). Baneblades have a chance. Their hull mounted cannon can only fire forward, but their turret mounted was a 155mm or something. And it's also rocket assisted (a legitimate addition) rounds. If the Baneblade has optics as good, or better than modern tanks, then it could probably healthily out range most modern MBTs. That being said, Baneblades are slow slow slow. So really, today's MBT vs Baneblade (ignoring 38 thousand years of armor development) looks like a toss up.

Random nitpick. Getting glanced by a bullet isn't that dangerous either.

The Guy
13-08-2008, 19:21
The baneblade would be toast... The baneblade has a gigantic cannon mounten in its hull, so it can only fire forward. A modern tank would most likely shoot the track of the baneblade then just outmanouver it.

As for modern soldiers vs imperial guard, i would say the imperial guard would win But not because of their tanks, that would be for sure (the wh40k tanks looks like pre ww2 tanks, accept it). A m1a2 is 120mm smoothbore cannon, and the leman russ is a 120mm smootbore, so in firepower they would be pretty equal (of course the emperor knows what the leman russ shell is loaded with, but still).

Hope i did not offend anyone.

Ps: i got the fact about the leman russ 120mm from the white dwarf armoured regiment thingy.

Edit:


In Chiaphas cain: For the emperor it is stated that the lasgun would evaporate the wound therefor not making it bleed, therefor it is not very dangerous getting glanced by a lasgun.

Baneblades have about 5 turret mounted weapons too you know :p

Ok, let's imagine you've taken a glancing shot to the shoulder. The blood vessels there have fused and blocked. Now, the pain, adrenaline and the pressure in that blood stream would force that wound to open again [probably not as likely in a minor wound though] so you probably would bleed quite a lot [contradicting what I said earlier :p]

Col. Tartleton
14-08-2008, 00:09
The description of a lasgun is an assault rifle thats cheap to manufacture, easy to keep supplied, and damn near impossible to break. Therefore I see it being in the region of a plastic based light weight AK 74 (yes, 74) with a higher caliber of fire (lasbolts are described as about a half inch wide so say .50) which is enough to inflict limb destroying shots (like a .50 cal would.) The Lasgun has the same strength as a shotgun, which puts it in the region I described. The magazine is compact but holds about a drum worth of shots (60 IIRC) and guardsman have a lot of them.

Flak Armor is not good enough to stop a 40mm grenade launcher but any round smaller than an armor piercing 40mm grenade wouldn't pierce it. (A bolter is about the same as a MGL 'Machine Grenade Launcher')

A guardsman would kick the crap out of a marine based simply on firepower, not to mention from birth indoctrination that would make the SS look like free spirits. (W00t Nazi reference included, its officially an IG thread)

legio mortis
14-08-2008, 03:39
Leman Russ would probably get destroyed by Modern Tanks, unless they've developed some armor 10x as potent as today's (vaguely possible).
Ha, that's pretty much it. The materials used in making the Imperial Guard's vehicles is much more advanced than our own. One took a hit that shoved the 62 ton tank four meters up a slight incline, but didn't penetrate. The conquerer cannon was also stated to have something around "190 tones of recoil force". Basically the same force as a 16" naval gun.



If the Baneblade has optics as good, or better than modern tanks, then it could probably healthily out range most modern MBTs.
Which it most certainly would. The normal Russes are also equipped with some pretty advanced equipment as well.

icegreentea
14-08-2008, 05:10
Ha, that's pretty much it. The materials used in making the Imperial Guard's vehicles is much more advanced than our own. One took a hit that shoved the 62 ton tank four meters up a slight incline, but didn't penetrate. The conquerer cannon was also stated to have something around "190 tones of recoil force". Basically the same force as a 16" naval gun.


Which it most certainly would. The normal Russes are also equipped with some pretty advanced equipment as well.

Problem with normal Russes is that is seems they're really bad at scoring hits. Modern targeting packages can pretty much ensure shoot:hit ratios as low as ~1.2:1 against enemy tanks. Pieces of fluff (going to ignore table top because of need for balance) seem to suggest that a large amount of Russes lack packages like this (or have had them disabled in prolonged combat), or tank crews are just THAT bad.

I'll easily concede the whole armor thing though. It still doesn't excuse the poor design of the Russ. If they shaped it properly, it could either a) maintain current armor level and go faster, longer or b) maintain current mobility and be even more deadly. Oh well. It looks cool. Good enough.

WrYpoRrY
14-08-2008, 05:59
The Imperial Guard are hard as diamond nails, but they're really like the UNSC marines in Halo. They are very well equipped and all, but compared to other armies they are just out gunned. Not outclassed, but still not on the same footing.

legio mortis
14-08-2008, 06:31
Problem with normal Russes is that is seems they're really bad at scoring hits. Modern targeting packages can pretty much ensure shoot:hit ratios as low as ~1.2:1 against enemy tanks. Pieces of fluff (going to ignore table top because of need for balance) seem to suggest that a large amount of Russes lack packages like this (or have had them disabled in prolonged combat), or tank crews are just THAT bad.
What exactly have you read? The stuff I've read indicates the opposite. Guard-standard Russes are going to be equipped with computerized tracking, auspex, inertial dampeners and even terrain scanners. To compare, in Honour Guard, the local Urdeshi tanks used by the chaos forces are noted to be very much inferior to the Guard tanks, noting a distinct lack of targeting and tracking equipment. The Urdeshi tanks had to stay still to fire accurately, whilst the Guard Russes were equipped so they could accurately fire whilst on the move. Also, in IAvol1, there is a little background action report involving a clash between the Eldar and an Imperial armored force. The end result is two Eldar Falcons being confirmed destroyed to two Leman Russes and two Chimera being destroyed. A third Falcon was presumed to be destroyed, but it was unconfirmed, and the Eldar also had support in the form of Pheonix bombers. To make my point, to even hit an Eldar tank is a great feat, and not something with poor targeting systems would be able to pull off.



It still doesn't excuse the poor design of the Russ. If they shaped it properly, it could either a) maintain current armor level and go faster, longer or b) maintain current mobility and be even more deadly. Oh well. It looks cool. Good enough.
And I agree with you on that. I think that the design is horrible, but, as you said, it looks kinda cool. But you do have to remember that the 40k scale is not to scale. The Epic models look a bit more realistic. The tank is lower and longer, and the turret is bigger.

Duckdude
14-08-2008, 10:33
Problem with normal Russes is that is seems they're really bad at scoring hits. Modern targeting packages can pretty much ensure shoot:hit ratios as low as ~1.2:1 against enemy tanks. Pieces of fluff (going to ignore table top because of need for balance) seem to suggest that a large amount of Russes lack packages like this (or have had them disabled in prolonged combat), or tank crews are just THAT bad.


It is actually stated in hte old codex that the reason why the russ is so "good" is because it can take what ever the untrained crew can do to it. So most leman russes would most likely not be fitted with any high tech targeting equipment. But the better russes (like the vanquisher) is most likely equiped with advanced targeting packages.

legio mortis
14-08-2008, 17:20
So most leman russes would most likely not be fitted with any high tech targeting equipment.
Again, there's no evidence for this. It's stated or implied many times that the Leman Russes used by the Guard are equipped with some sort of computerized targeting equipment. Granted, that's only the Guard-issue ones.



But the better russes (like the vanquisher) is most likely equiped with advanced targeting packages.
The only thing that's noted as being special about the Vanquisher is it's cannon.

Duckdude
14-08-2008, 18:14
Again, there's no evidence for this. It's stated or implied many times that the Leman Russes used by the Guard are equipped with some sort of computerized targeting equipment. Granted, that's only the Guard-issue ones.

Well the imperial guard is known for its war of attrition where they jsut need large quantity of tanks and manpower. So why fit a tank with advanced quipment when it is likely to last no more then 5 hours (extreme example).
Without this gear you can produce them faster and cheaper.

EDIT: ok after looking in white dwarf 296(the one on armoured companies) i saw the "blueprint" for the leman russ. And it seems the little box on the left side of the turret is where the targeter box is, so it must have some kind of targeters. BUT i am still sure that it is not amongst the best in wh40k.
In other words you where right. :cries: ;)



The only thing that's noted as being special about the Vanquisher is it's cannon.

And that they cant make alot more of them, therefor they would most likely fit them with the most hi tech equipment possible, so they would not just waist another precious vanquisher cannon.

legio mortis
14-08-2008, 18:25
Well the imperial guard is known for its war of attrition where they jsut need large quantity of tanks and manpower. So why fit a tank with advanced quipment when it is likely to last no more then 5 hours (extreme example).
This is nothing but an extreme stereotype. The Imperial Guard is known for it's diverse ways of war, ranging from blitzkrieg to guerilla warfare to airborne ops and, yes, trench warfare. To question whether or not advanced equipment should be equipped is out of the question, as we have plenty of evidence stating that they do.




And that they cant make alot more of them, therefor they would most likely fit them with the most hi tech equipment possible.
Actually, the production of Vanquisher cannons is increasing. It's stated in IAvol1, and the newer Vanquisher in the DKoK line proves it. As stated before, the only thing that makes the Vanquisher special is the cannon it uses. It's specifically stated.



Just like the crew of the vanquisher are only veterans who have proven they can actually drive a tank.
This is totally baseless. I'd like to see your source.

Edit: Just saw your edit. Of course they're not going to be the best 40k has to offer, but the best 40k offers is basically full AI.

Joe Kutz
14-08-2008, 19:06
Also, in IAvol1, there is a little background action report involving a clash between the Eldar and an Imperial armored force. The end result is two Eldar Falcons being confirmed destroyed to two Leman Russes and two Chimera being destroyed. A third Falcon was presumed to be destroyed, but it was unconfirmed, and the Eldar also had support in the form of Pheonix bombers. To make my point, to even hit an Eldar tank is a great feat, and not something with poor targeting systems would be able to pull off.

You might want to reread what is actually in that section (unless it is a different section than what I am remembering).



Battle Group Ostalan, with 10 battle tanks and 2 super heavy tanks, reported enemy sniper fire. One tank was disabled by an enemy proximity fused plasma mine, left as a booby trap.

At 551 reconnaissance elements identified a fast moving formation of 12 enemy 'skimmer' vehicles moving over the Karsundi River - most likely 'Falcon' and 'Wave Serpent' types. Lieutenant Talbor requested and was given permission to withdraw. Lead elements of Battle Group Ostalan moved to engage the enemy. The enemy counter was headed off in fierce fighting. Reports of enemy infantry with heavy weapon support halted the Battle Group's advance.

Battle Group Ostalan Loss Report
a. Complete Loss: 2 Leman Russ battle tanks, 3 Chimera armoured carriers.
b. Badly Damaged: 3 Leman Russ battle tanks, 2 Chimera armoured carriers, 1 Salamander Scout vehicle.
c. Slight Damage: 1 Baneblade, 1 Chimera carrier.
d. Casualties: 14 KIA, 13 seriously wounded, 30 lightly wounded.
e. Enemy Losses: (Unconfirmed) 3 Falcons, 44 Infantry. (Confirmed) 2 Falcons, 19 Infantry.


Badly damaged vehicles are effectively out of commission, but there is still enough intact in order to repair them. More importantly, what would be in the battle group other than the mentioned tanks?



The core of each Battlegroup will be one or more of the regiment's Tank companies. Attached to the Tank company will be an Armoured Fist company or two, as well as other assets, an AA battery, siege guns, tank destroyers etc. The exact division of these supporting assets varies widely, depending upon what enemy the Battlegroup is facing and the terrain it is likely to encounter.


Since earlier in the fluff text in mentions attacks by Eldar flyers - most likely there would have been one or more AA batteries attached to the Battlegroup. These do have good targeting ability. The Russes would have probably done more damage with their small arms, except after the infantry in the Wave Serpents dismounted and were fighting on foot. Since the Guard would have outnumbered the Eldar by at least 4 to one (potentially 16 to 1 based on the rest of the battle group details)...I think the Eldar did pretty well. Still, you can't make any assumptions of how well the Russ performed based on the text.

In the same book, under the interior detail for the Russ - it explains the Gunners console as primary sights and range finder - no advanced targeting equipment. In the Leman Russ description, it also implies rather clearly some about the targeting instruments of the tank:



THe Leman Russ is not a sophisticated vehicle and contains little in the way of advanced targeting or control devices.


When a vehicle actually has advanced targeting, it is generally called out specifically in the description or the fluff (Prometheus LR for example).


Of course they're not going to be the best 40k has to offer, but the best 40k offers is basically full AI.

No, Imperial 40K would never even think of using full AI - that would be the most heretical thing possible in the eyes of the Adeptus Mechanicus.




Just like the crew of the vanquisher are only veterans who have proven they can actually drive a tank.

This is totally baseless. I'd like to see your source.

IA Volume 1 - Under the Vanquisher entry:

Those Vanquishers that remain in service are carefully maintained and only granted to tank crews who have proved themselves in the heat of battle.

Sounds a lot like veterans to me.

legio mortis
14-08-2008, 19:50
In the same book, under the interior detail for the Russ - it explains the Gunners console as primary sights and range finder - no advanced targeting equipment.
But it also calls it "The weapons targeter console". Now, it all depends on what your definition of "advanced targeting equipment" is. What is being compared? Are you comparing it to a Land Raider, or the aforemented Urdeshi made AT-70 Reaver light tanks? I've found a quote that describes Urdeshi made tanks that have equipment similar to the Leman Russ.


The AT83 Brigands, larger than their more primitive cousins the 70s, were, on paper, the Urdeshi forge world's equivalent of the Leman Russ. They had auspex guidance, weapon stabilisers and torsion bar suspension. They were the Blood Pact's best battle machines, not counting the very few ancient super-heavies they had inherited from defeated Guard units.



When a vehicle actually has advanced targeting, it is generally called out specifically in the description or the fluff (Prometheus LR for example).
Again, it's going to depend on your definition of "advanced" when talking about something in this setting and what you're comparing it too. If we just look at this, that the Prometheus is specifically described as having advanced targeting, does it just affect the Prometheus? What about normal Land Raiders or Predators?



No, Imperial 40K would never even think of using full AI - that would be the most heretical thing possible in the eyes of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Except that I wasn't talking about only the Imperials. I said "the best 40k has to offer", not the Imperium.


Sounds a lot like veterans to me.
Yeah, I misread.

Duckdude
14-08-2008, 22:50
This is nothing but an extreme stereotype.


Ok i admit it is, but that is what the fluff says. And the novels only makes this stereotype even stronger (like the novel 15 hours, or whats it called)



Actually, the production of Vanquisher cannons is increasing. It's stated in IAvol1, and the newer Vanquisher in the DKoK line proves it. As stated before, the only thing that makes the Vanquisher special is the cannon it uses. It's specifically stated.


It is increasing, yes. but they are still rare.




This is totally baseless. I'd like to see your source.


My source is the old imperial guard codex. (And in IA Volume 1 - Under the Vanquisher entry, as Joe Kutz pointed out)

Quote from the old guard codex page 20:
"Those vanquishers that remain in service are carefully maintained and only granted to tank crews that have proven themselves in the heat of battle"

I might have been exagerating a little. But my point is that vanquishers are rare and not given to any tank crew that have not proven themselves in battle.

What the codex says about the normal leman:

Quote from the old guard codex page 19:
"The leman russ is by no means the most sophisticated vehicle, nor the most comfortable or easy to use. However its adaptability, rugged construction and ability to keep on working no matter what an inexperienced crew may do to it has made it arguably the most successful tank design in the galaxy"

You would suspect that most leman russes are driven by newly trained crews that have not experienced alot of firefights beforehand. So why waist good targeting equipment on them?
But as i said in my other post, i now, after looking it up, have seen that the normal leman russ is given targeting equipment and the likes. But i am still sure that the vanquishers are given better equipment.

Joe Kutz
14-08-2008, 23:57
I still wouldn't concede that they have "targeting" equipment. They have a range finder and a primary sight. That doesn't amount to targeting equipment in my mind. All it may be is a laser range finder and a CC camera/monitor with a joystick to move the turret - that would be a targeting console, made of parts that you can pick up at your local Radio Shack. Advanced targeting would involve something which is more active, identifying potential targets and actively adjust the barrel position to deal with the movement of the currently selected target...not only that, but as I had mentioned before, Imperial Armor also says it doesn't have Advanced Targeting systems.

The Vanquisher's first line in Imperial Armor says it is a "more sophisticated" version of the Leman Russ. Now, it may just mean it has a bigger gun - but more likely it means that it has better targeting equipment, and other more complicated systems.

grumpy old gamer
15-08-2008, 00:30
I note that the OP started with the term guardsmen not tanks of the IG are poor.
Then we have wandered off to cf the modern day soldier to a guardsman.
Can any one please try and find a modern day regular that believes dying in the name of thier chosen rag on a pole is the ultimate goal their profession ?
None? Quite right. but the DKOK love the chance to die for the E.
In the big bad world of 40K humanity is still top dog , not because of the Smurfs etc but because their are enough folk out there who are willing/ commisar encouraged to die for a greater cause.
Also humanity has one great advantage, when the chips are down a hero ( yes he has a beard and a checked shirt and too tight denim jeans) will do a slow round house kick and save the world.

legio mortis
15-08-2008, 02:35
Ok i admit it is, but that is what the fluff says. And the novels only makes this stereotype even stronger (like the novel 15 hours, or whats it called)
And yet the fluff from the Munitorum Manual, all the Ghost and the Cain books state otherwise. As I've said before, there are regiments that are used for overwhelming the enemy through numbers, such as the DKoK and other Siege regiments, but it's not their main way of war.



You would suspect that most leman russes are driven by newly trained crews that have not experienced alot of firefights beforehand. So why waist good targeting equipment on them?
Why would we suspect that? Going only by how Guardsmen are normally inducted, it's safe to say that most of the Guard tank crews would have been tankers previously in their planet's PDF. They would already have experience.


I still wouldn't concede that they have "targeting" equipment. They have a range finder and a primary sight. That doesn't amount to targeting equipment in my mind. All it may be is a laser range finder and a CC camera/monitor with a joystick to move the turret - that would be a targeting console, made of parts that you can pick up at your local Radio Shack. Advanced targeting would involve something which is more active, identifying potential targets and actively adjust the barrel position to deal with the movement of the currently selected target...not only that, but as I had mentioned before, Imperial Armor also says it doesn't have Advanced Targeting systems.
The quote I gave you gives the slightly inferior yet still equivilant Brigand tanks with auspex guidance and the like. The term "guidance" would mean the the gun is at least partially computer controlled. When comparing tanks in 40k, you have to keep in mind the sort of technology we're dealing with here, not your own version. Auspex guidance, inertial dampeners and terrain scanners are all considered pretty basic when it comes to tank equipment.



The Vanquisher's first line in Imperial Armor says it is a "more sophisticated" version of the Leman Russ. Now, it may just mean it has a bigger gun - but more likely it means that it has better targeting equipment, and other more complicated systems.
Except that we have no indication nor any other fluff source giving us any difference between a regular Russ and a Vanquisher other than the cannon. Given that the only reason that Vanquishers are rare is the cannon implies that that's the only major thing that separates it from it's normal cousins.

Wolflord Havoc
15-08-2008, 12:25
Ah Guardsmen – the Whipping boys of the Black Library and ‘fluffy stories’

The ‘Basic’ Guardsman in my mind represents the best trained ‘non-augmented’ soldier that humanity can produce. There’s just lots of them

A PDF Regiment that becomes a Guard Regiment would in most cases represent the cream of those worlds fighting men and women. It would be a great honor to be a member of a Guard Regiment. Of course there are exceptions - Savlar Chem Dogs, Pressed Hive gangs, the conscripted chaff of a hive world. But then consider the Cadian Shock trooper – trained from birth – he would know fire and maneuver tactics on a squad/platoon/company scale by the time he reaches puberty. Consider the Elysian Sky borne. The Tanith 1st and Only, the Volpone Blue Bloods!!!!!

The Guardsman of the 41st millenia have personnel comms, a weapon that always works and is probably the equal (if not superior) of 3rd millenia assault rifles. Also ammo is not such an issue as these weapons.

The weapons armor and tanks may not be the best in the galaxy but they are compatible between worlds due to the STC – therefore a Rgt hailing from one planet would be able to use weapons and ammo and spares from another and be familiar with – it is often said that Guard love the Lasgun (for example the Death Korp.’s of Kreig Grenadiers not liking their Hell guns but are forced to carry them due to regulations!!!) for its simplicity and reliability.

The Leman Russ is built on Tens of thousands of worlds and due to the STC, parts of one built on say the Forge World of Vaux (I made that up BTW) would be compatible with one built on the industrial ‘advanced’ world of Totenberg Prime (My Regiments home world).

This is the strength of the Guard – compatibility and mass production. There equipment has been proven to work on one hundred thousand battlefields before the great crusade began.

Remember that the average Imperial Guardsman would have a Racial hatred of all things Xenos, Psykers and Mutants and woo betide any heretics that cross his path.

He is not a feeble whining wimp cowering at the bottom of a trench. He is a highly trained Soldier.

And while Marines might be able to go through them like waste through a grox consider that for every Marine there must be Millions of ‘Guardsmen’ (and this does not take into account PDF and Militia). I actually think Chapter strengths and numbers don’t make sense but that’s for another thread!!

ChaosTicket
15-08-2008, 14:16
The main factor is that Imperial Guard fon't face heavy targets that much. Most of the Time the face Kroot, Eldar Guardians, Enemy Guardsmen, Orks, etc. The Heavier enemies like Necrons, Traitor Astartes, and the like usually get Imperial Astartes and if they are Astartes will Usually still be there, like in the 1rst Armageddon War.

Imperial Guard are very well represented in 40k. Most Imperial Guard are just Low Class, High School level educated men and women. They have the most basic weapons and armor, but also anyone could use them, from the worst to best shots, smartest to bumbest people. That means that EVERY person in the universe could be equipped to be an Imperial Guard soldier.

On worlds with higher class of people, technology, and other high class things, the soldier are better educated, trained, and equipped. If BS4, Carapace armor, and Hell weapons became options for your units you could represent the "Elite" Imperial Guard Like from teh Gaunt's Ghosts Novels, the Volpone Bluebloods, and other Heavy Infantry Regimnets.

Alot of the Number Factors in 40k are not introduced for certain armies, but Apocalypse does. Such as one Imperial Regiment, ork Warband, or other forces would be represented by 2-5 different armies together.

Think about those things, like 2000 Guardsmen in One Regiment versus say 1-200 Necrons of an Ambush force.

Imperial Guard do in fact protect nearly every Imperial Planet, it takes massive forces to dislodge them, like the Black Crusades, and ork Waaaaghs!!! to actually take over planets.

Cavalier
15-08-2008, 17:53
Well, there's a lot of discussion here where posters are picking and choosing the fluff they prefer. There's nothing wrong with that, but remember that both sides have fluff to support them.

The IG are alternatively portrayed as complete newbs rushed into combat with minimal training and incompetent officers, and then as hyper-competent guys who stepped directly out of an action movie. Both of these portrayals are common in official GW fluff, so neither are "right" or "wrong". There is a lot of variation in the IG. It is quite possible that some units would be so highly trained and so well equipped that it would make modern forces pale. Others would be forced forward at gunpoint, marching straight into enemy fire. It really depends on the regiment you face.

As far as equipment and training goes, I don't think the "average" guardsman is as well equipped as an "average" modern soldier (modern soldier meaning a soldier from a NATO member state -- guardsmen are much better equipped than a Taliban guy in the hills or an 11 year old in the Sudan). Quite simply, NATO members have an "every soldier is valuable" mentality that the Imperium doesn't. A battle in which 200 soldiers were killed would be seen as a disaster in a NATO nation, even if the objective were achieved. In the Imperium, casualties that light would arouse suspicion that someone was obviously doing something wrong. "Why haven't more of your men died in glorious service to the Emperor?" ;)

A modern soldier has access to far more resources than his Imperial counterpart. A single squad can call in Predator or Reaper air strikes, artillery barrages, etc. A squad of guardsmen cannot easily access that same level of support. Those orders have to come from higher up the chain of command.

icegreentea
15-08-2008, 20:12
As far as equipment and training goes, I don't think the "average" guardsman is as well equipped as an "average" modern soldier (modern soldier meaning a soldier from a NATO member state -- guardsmen are much better equipped than a Taliban guy in the hills or an 11 year old in the Sudan). Quite simply, NATO members have an "every soldier is valuable" mentality that the Imperium doesn't. A battle in which 200 soldiers were killed would be seen as a disaster in a NATO nation, even if the objective were achieved. In the Imperium, casualties that light would arouse suspicion that someone was obviously doing something wrong. "Why haven't more of your men died in glorious service to the Emperor?" ;)

A modern soldier has access to far more resources than his Imperial counterpart. A single squad can call in Predator or Reaper air strikes, artillery barrages, etc. A squad of guardsmen cannot easily access that same level of support. Those orders have to come from higher up the chain of command.

To be fair, this is a question of doctrine. NATO armed forces are as you described it. Infantry formations down to platoon/squad size can all in fire support from a variety of sources due to the autonomy and relative freedom granted to them. This is the NATO doctrine. When you don't have vast armies of people and facing an enemy that does, you have to maximize firepower and be able to apply it sharply.

Non-NATO forces (at least before the few decades) have not had this mindset. Manpower is more expendable, command and control is centralized and located higher up on the chain of command, and along with it, control of fire support. This gains the advantage when you realize that the complexity of your communication, and your logistics load go down.

The Guard by and large seem to follow the second doctrine. Because manpower is their greatest asset and currency. The type of warfare (planets exploding and Daemons everywhere) the Guard engage in probably means that the majority of soldiers will die before the investment of greater training or equipment can be paid off.

Finally, going back to the point on Leman Russ aiming. I take back my point from forever ago. They probably do have some nice optics and lead calculating machines (NO COMPUTERS ALLOWED). Certainly not top of the line, but completely workable. It just fled my mind that the Eldar are based around being impossible to hit to start with.

Comparing Modern Armies and the IG will always end up in this type of ridiculousness because of the amount of Fluff and the lack of Fluff and the absurdity of Fluff. The only thing you can really agree on is that IG sees some stuff more insane than anything a modern trooper has ever see.

Cavalier
15-08-2008, 21:28
To be fair, this is a question of doctrine. NATO armed forces are as you described it. Infantry formations down to platoon/squad size can all in fire support from a variety of sources due to the autonomy and relative freedom granted to them. This is the NATO doctrine. When you don't have vast armies of people and facing an enemy that does, you have to maximize firepower and be able to apply it sharply.

Non-NATO forces (at least before the few decades) have not had this mindset. Manpower is more expendable, command and control is centralized and located higher up on the chain of command, and along with it, control of fire support. This gains the advantage when you realize that the complexity of your communication, and your logistics load go down.

The Guard by and large seem to follow the second doctrine. Because manpower is their greatest asset and currency. The type of warfare (planets exploding and Daemons everywhere) the Guard engage in probably means that the majority of soldiers will die before the investment of greater training or equipment can be paid off.

Finally, going back to the point on Leman Russ aiming. I take back my point from forever ago. They probably do have some nice optics and lead calculating machines (NO COMPUTERS ALLOWED). Certainly not top of the line, but completely workable. It just fled my mind that the Eldar are based around being impossible to hit to start with.

Comparing Modern Armies and the IG will always end up in this type of ridiculousness because of the amount of Fluff and the lack of Fluff and the absurdity of Fluff. The only thing you can really agree on is that IG sees some stuff more insane than anything a modern trooper has ever see.

I totally agree with all of this.

There is really no reason to train a Mordian as you would a Green Beret. Green Berets learn foreign languages, camoflage, infiltration, and a hundred other skills that Mordians would find totally useless. The Imperial Guard go to war with millions of men, and they fight enemies beyond anything we face using the one advantage they have: numbers. It is a different method of waging war, based on different needs and different capabilities, and their training reflects that.

A Leman Russ appears to be inferior to an Abrams tank. Yes, it is faster and easier to produce, but the design and materials appear inferior. However, for the job they need it to do, it is excellent. Both the Abrams and the Russ have a 12 AV against a Bright Lance, and a Falcon gets a 4+ save against both of them. The Leman Russ weapons and armor are just good enough. They make up for quality with quantity. One Abrams versus one Russ? That is a mismatch. But it won't be one on one. It will be twenty to one, or fifty to one.

Duckdude
15-08-2008, 22:16
Comparing Modern Armies and the IG will always end up in this type of ridiculousness because of the amount of Fluff and the lack of Fluff and the absurdity of Fluff. The only thing you can really agree on is that IG sees some stuff more insane than anything a modern trooper has ever see.

Amen to that

Fideru
15-08-2008, 22:35
Comparing Modern Armies and the IG will always end up in this type of ridiculousness because of the amount of Fluff and the lack of Fluff and the absurdity of Fluff. The only thing you can really agree on is that IG sees some stuff more insane than anything a modern trooper has ever see.

You deserve medals.

Iracundus
16-08-2008, 01:29
A Leman Russ appears to be inferior to an Abrams tank.

We know the Leman Russ is inferior from its geometry and also from such things as its listed performance characteristics in Imperial Armour. Modern tanks all have a significantly higher speed than that listed for the Leman Russ.

The Imperial Guard wins its wars through weight of numbers. The Leman Russ is inferior but the Imperium fields enormous numbers of them and the Leman Russ is supposedly incredibly rugged in its durability and simplicity to maintain and operate.

Too many people are assuming that just because 40K takes place in a future era that the technology by default has to be more advanced than modern day stuff. That is far from a safe assumption given the attitude towards technology in the Imperium and the fact the Imperium arose after a general collapse of human civilization in the Age of Strife. If anything, what has been shown is that the Imperium's technology is often inferior to modern day technology in performance, but excelling in ease of manufacture, maintenance, and ruggedness for long term use.

legio mortis
16-08-2008, 03:06
Yes, it is faster and easier to produce, but the design and materials appear inferior.
The materials? Do you have any reference? A KE penetrator that was able to shove a 62 ton tank several meters slightly uphill is stopped by 200mm of whatever materials the Russ was made of. Their hulls are able to glow "white hot", and yet there is no detrimental affects to the crew. The Russ may be a bit slow, but they're tough as hell to kill. The conquerer cannon alone has 190 tons of recoil force. That's the same as a 16" naval gun. I'm sure I've said that before. A force of normal Leman Russes were able to knock a machine weighing several thousand tons off of a wall, while at the same time blowing huge chunks out of it.


We know the Leman Russ is inferior from its geometry and also from such things as its listed performance characteristics in Imperial Armour. Modern tanks all have a significantly higher speed than that listed for the Leman Russ.
Yes, but in turn the Leman Russ has greater firepower and durability.



Too many people are assuming that just because 40K takes place in a future era that the technology by default has to be more advanced than modern day stuff.
But it's not an unreasonable assumption. We have evidence for materials and equipment beyond our capabilities. Holographic displays, personal laser weapons, plasma engines, you name it.



That is far from a safe assumption given the attitude towards technology in the Imperium and the fact the Imperium arose after a general collapse of human civilization in the Age of Strife.
No, because when it fell, Humanity's technology was beyond our wildest dreams. We just have no idea how far they fell before they managed to pick up the pieces.



If anything, what has been shown is that the Imperium's technology is often inferior to modern day technology in performance
I just don't see the connection here. Much of what we have seen indicates the opposite.

Chem-Dog
16-08-2008, 04:28
I guess there are different types of incompetence as well. Look at the orks, they are comically incompetent, but oftentimes, the sheer ridiculousness of the Orks is what brings them victory. Guard seem like the truly incompetent soldiers die a hell of a lot faster than the capable ones who in my mind are the ones on the tabletop.

A classic example of Fluff Vs Tabletop. It's a common problem and although Movie Marines was deemed necessary, Movie Guardsmen weren't :(


Ok, also to be considered are the regiment of guard in question. Cadians would not win that fight. Catachans are another story. However, consider the presence of weapons such as plasma and flamers.

Cadians are the template for soldiery in the Imperium, very few regiments can best them across multiple theatres.


At any given time, a Guardsmen is expected to carry around 2000 shots worth of ammunition for his lasgun.

A sixpack of Duracell?!



As is any fighting force that we have today. It's one of the cold facts of war. Why do you think that an attacking force, as a rule, needs to have at least a 3:1 advantage in numbers?

Very few governments or regimes would happily send 60k men marching off to certain death through no real gain, or worse, as a decoy, the Imperium would and frequently does.


what we have in real life are citizen soldiers. they enlist, serve their tour of duty, and then go home (usually) In 40k, they are born and raised to be soldiers. It is not a profession, its a way of life.

Spartans! What is your profession? :D


I'm pretty sure that the basic Imperial Guardsman has much more basic training than a basic modern soldier (around 60 days for a guardsman, compared to 28 (in australia anyway) days for a modern soldier). The Elite (stormtroopers) are also better trained, being trained in the....soldier...training school thing (the name escapes me) since a very young age.

It's pretty much accepted Guardsmen serve some period of time as the PDF with training and domestic disturbances to contend with. Once an IG regiment is raised from the top 10% of the PDF it will be drilled further en rout to it's assigned warzone, this travel will take months, if not years.


Guardsmen the true heros of the Imperium

QFT


In some fluff, no IG regiment returns home from a campaign. Ever. Just won't happen. Thats intended to make them fight for their new home....

I can think of one source that specifically mentions ex IG veterans living on their homeworld post duty.
Problem of it is Warp Travel, by the time you've gone to the warzone, fought a 12 year conflict and won and travelled back the panet you left is going to be about 500 years older than when you left it, everything you knew would be dust, you would be visiting great great gread grand kids, if your family survived at all.


reassure the Chemdogs they won't go back to Savlar...

AAAH! No, I did what I was told to......


So why are the guard armed with less effective guns? i hear you cry....

It's not really LESS effective, more of a case of effective enough.


....The baneblade would be toast... The baneblade has a gigantic cannon mounten in its hull, so it can only fire forward.


The Baneblade's main weapon is turret mounted, as are it's two ANTITANK Lascannons ;)


Leman Russ would probably get destroyed by Modern Tanks, unless they've developed some armor 10x as potent as today's (vaguely possible).

Well, the front of a Russ is AV 14, samer as a Baneblade, hell it's the same as the Planet Killer!


Problem with normal Russes is that is seems they're really bad at scoring hits. Modern targeting packages can pretty much ensure shoot:hit ratios as low as ~1.2:1 against enemy tanks. Pieces of fluff (going to ignore table top because of need for balance) seem to suggest that a large amount of Russes lack packages like this (or have had them disabled in prolonged combat), or tank crews are just THAT bad.

I'll easily concede the whole armor thing though. It still doesn't excuse the poor design of the Russ. If they shaped it properly, it could either a) maintain current armor level and go faster, longer or b) maintain current mobility and be even more deadly. Oh well. It looks cool. Good enough.

Russ's poor shooting is simply a game mechanic issue, if the Dice were a D100 or a D1000 it would be more accurate than a D6 allows given that a Bs5+ vehicle should be rarer than hen's teeth and Marines are Bs4.

Design issues can be laid at the feet of the Adeptus Mechanicus' "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to battlefield equipment.


And I agree with you on that. I think that the design is horrible, but, as you said, it looks kinda cool. But you do have to remember that the 40k scale is not to scale. The Epic models look a bit more realistic. The tank is lower and longer, and the turret is bigger.

If you ask a 7 year old boy to draw a tank you'll probably get something like a Russ as a result (my son actually draws Russes, but that's another issue), the Leman Russ is an amalgam of shorthand for what a tank should look like, it's a mix of archetypes, rather than an actual working vehicle.


Actually, the production of Vanquisher cannons is increasing.....and the newer Vanquisher in the DKoK line proves it.

Not really, all it proves is that FW made a new Vanquisher for the Kreig range.


There is really no reason to train a Mordian as you would a Green Beret. Green Berets learn foreign languages, camoflage, infiltration, and a hundred other skills that Mordians would find totally useless.

BUT the Green Berets aren't expected to learn the liturgy of abduration, or know the 1001 way you can spot Deamonic possession.....

Iracundus
16-08-2008, 04:56
But it's not an unreasonable assumption. We have evidence for materials and equipment beyond our capabilities. Holographic displays, personal laser weapons, plasma engines, you name it.



Yet we also have examples of Imperial aerospace fighters that can supposedly move faster than any aircraft on Earth today ending up fighting at what amounts to point blank ranges in modern terms using iron sights for their guns, and Leman Russ tanks with listed speeds slower than tanks from the 1950's and 1960's.

There was a GW WD article where the armor plating on Imperial tanks was equated to a certain thickness of conventional steel. It turns out the equivalent amount on a Land Raider or Leman Russ was an amount of steel easily penetrated by modern anti-tank rounds. The Imperium achieved that equivalence with a very thin layer of composite sci-fi material but the amount of absolute protection was very inferior to modern tanks.

The Imperium is a mix of the advanced with the primitive, and when it comes in particular to the massed numbers of the Imperial Guard the focus is on mass production not necessarily quality. Just because it is in a far future era does not mean evidence of Imperial technological inferiority compared to modern technology can be dismissed out of hand.

legio mortis
16-08-2008, 05:49
There was a GW WD article where the armor plating on Imperial tanks was equated to a certain thickness of conventional steel. It turns out the equivalent amount on a Land Raider or Leman Russ was an amount of steel easily penetrated by modern anti-tank rounds. The Imperium achieved that equivalence with a very thin layer of composite sci-fi material but the amount of absolute protection was very inferior to modern tanks.
This is assuming that the "conventional steel" of the 41st millenium is the same as steel used today. Secondly, this also clashes with the Land Raider's and the Leman Russes descriptions, which say that only the heaviest weapons can kill them. This must then mean that the weapons of 40k must be drastically weaker than ours, yet we have mountains of evidence pointing the opposite directions. The Demolisher cannon is so powerful, that the Demolisher tank needs to stay still to fire, or else it risks being flipped over. The conquerer cannon has 190 tons of recoil force. We have a source that describes a hunter-killer missile boring straight through a two-meter wide beam and destroying an armored vehicle that was sitting on the other side, and one where a hunter-killer punched straight through one tank to destroy a tank sitting behind it.

Iracundus
16-08-2008, 13:45
For those people operating under some sort of illusion about the Leman Russ's speed: The Leman Russ is listed by FW as having a road speed of 35 km/h and 21 km/h off road. An M1 has a publically listed road speed of 66 and 48 respectively, and the MBT's of other nations are roughly in the same ballpark area. Even a Cold War relic like a Chinese T-59 from the 1950's has a better speed.

Imperial armored formations are not "mobile" as understood in the modern sense, and would be very susceptible to being outmaneuvered. The Imperials aren't going to be be blitzkrieging anyone like that. Swarming with numbers yes, but not running circles as some are attempting to argue. The Leman Russ again ends up being a mass produced tank that achieves victory for the Imperium by sheer number, not performance characteristics (heavy, slow moving, thinly armored, high profile)



Chapter Approved 2004, the article on Transport Vehicles: Land Raider armor is listed as 95mm maximum thickness along with the note "that the composite construction consisting of 2 ceramite layers, 1 titanium/plasteel layer, 1 adamantium layer and 1 thermoplas layer is equal to 365mm of conventional steel armor"


The fact it refers to steel and not plasteel means it is steel as it is understood in the normal sense. It isn't some magical sci-fi material. What subtype of steel isn't specified wheter rolled steel or whatever, but even so that gives bonudaries of what can realistically be expected.



The Demolisher cannon is so powerful, that the Demolisher tank needs to stay still to fire, or else it risks being flipped over. The conquerer cannon has 190 tons of recoil force. We have a source that describes a hunter-killer missile boring straight through a two-meter wide beam and destroying an armored vehicle that was sitting on the other side, and one where a hunter-killer punched straight through one tank to destroy a tank sitting behind it.

Quote these sources

legio mortis
16-08-2008, 17:50
When the Demolisher cannon is fired, its massive recoil lifts the front of the tank off the ground. If it were fired on the move the whole tank would be in danger of rolling over! Because of this, the Demolisher cannon may only be fired if the vehicle remained stationary



"When it fired, the breech of the main gun hurtled back into the turret space with one hundred and ninety tonnes of recoil force."
That's a tank hurling a 500 kg shell with the force of a 12" naval gun. The kinetic energy alone is staggering.


The lethality of the hunter/killer missiles was proven beyond doubt when a missile fired by the Leman Russ Glory of Heller went straight through the tank it was aimed at and penetrated the armour of the vehicle next to it. A missile fired in a later battle went clean through a two-metre beam and knocked out an enemy troop carrier on the other side. In both instances, the hunter/killer performed a feat it was supposedly incapable of accomplishing.

Want more? If the Russ and, indeed, the Land Raider were truly less armored than a T-55, and given that their descriptions describe them as being impervious to all but the heaviest of weapons, don't you think that these descriptions would match up to that way of thinking?

Iracundus
16-08-2008, 18:12
Want more? If the Russ and, indeed, the Land Raider were truly less armored than a T-55, and given that their descriptions describe them as being impervious to all but the heaviest of weapons, don't you think that these descriptions would match up to that way of thinking?

All that statement showed was that an Imperial tank firing an Imperial tech missile at an equivalent Imperial tech tank. There isn't any objective data to compare to modern tanks. If anything, the anecdote reinforces the point of view that Leman Russ (or comparable) tanks are flimsy compared to modern tanks if they are so easily penetrated.

Also the objective veracity of that in-character source is suspect given that it is written in the form of an Imperial publication. Such publications are not exactly renowned for being accurate, as the Imperial Guardsman's primer shows, where the Imperium outright lies to its troops.

legio mortis
16-08-2008, 18:38
All that statement showed was that an Imperial tank firing an Imperial tech missile at an equivalent Imperial tech tank. There isn't any objective data to compare to modern tanks. If anything, the anecdote reinforces the point of view that Leman Russ (or comparable) tanks are flimsy compared to modern tanks if they are so easily penetrated.
Except for the part where the missile is stated to have gone through a "two-meter beam". A missile blowing clean through a two meter thick slab of metal isn't everyday stuff.



Also the objective veracity of that in-character source is suspect given that it is written in the form of an Imperial publication. Such publications are not exactly renowned for being accurate, as the Imperial Guardsman's primer shows, where the Imperium outright lies to its troops.
Except that the Munitorum Manual is a degree more objective than it's counterpart. The quote I gave you is described in an objective and factual way, with nothing in the form of propaganda or exaggeration.

Iracundus
16-08-2008, 18:48
Except for the part where the missile is stated to have gone through a "two-meter beam". A missile blowing clean through a two meter thick slab of metal isn't everyday stuff.


A two meter beam of what? Is it stated? Was it armor grade material or poor quality brittle metal with fatigue?



Except that the Munitorum Manual is a degree more objective than it's counterpart. The quote I gave you is described in an objective and factual way, with nothing in the form of propaganda or exaggeration.

Writing style does not prove it any more objective. All that might show is they have a more subtle propaganda writer than the bombastic and blatant one in the Guard primer. In-character sources are inherently suspect.

Badger[Fr]
16-08-2008, 21:44
Quote these sources
Actually, this source is the venerable Rogue Trader itself, whose rules prevented Demolisher Canons from firing while moving.

Demolisher shells feature more than simple chemical explosives: they use a Plasma core as well. A Leman Russ can shrugg a direct Eldar Missile Launcher hit on his front armour off. A Flak Armour is strong enough to stop machine guns bullets. Imperial weapons may share some similarities with their 20th century counterparts, but that does not mean they are actually using the same tech.

Anyway, those kind of "21th Century VS 40k" threads are silly: the Imperium of man builds Titans bigger than a skyscraper and weapons than can blow whole planets apart, its servants routinely use Laser and Melta weapons that are far beyond our scientific knowledge while facing foes that would make most human beings run in terror, yet the Imperial Guard, whose soldiers belong to the 10% finest warriors of the Imperium, wouldn't be able to fare better than an average 21th century NATO army, who hasn't been involved in any large scale fighting for years. Please, be serious.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 01:53
;2871755']Anyway, those kind of "21th Century VS 40k" threads are silly: the Imperium of man builds Titans bigger than a skyscraper and weapons than can blow whole planets apart, its servants routinely use Laser and Melta weapons that are far beyond our scientific knowledge while facing foes that would make most human beings run in terror, yet the Imperial Guard, whose soldiers belong to the 10% finest warriors of the Imperium, wouldn't be able to fare better than an average 21th century NATO army, who hasn't been involved in any large scale fighting for years. Please, be serious.

I am. That is precisely the point of 40K you seem to be missing. Just because it is in the future doesn't make everything in the Imperium advanced. The Imperium does not win through superior technology. It wins through faith and manpower. The Imperium is a post-technological state. From the Imperium's point of view, technology had its day in the sun and it failed, and the Imperium is instead an era built upon human faith and flesh. Its tanks have listed speeds slower than tanks from the Cold War era. Its infantry are mostly unmechanized and march to their objectives. The Cadians at the Battle of Tyrok Fields even attacked in lined up Napoleonic like lines, and the Death Korps of Krieg are a replica of WWI warfare with their special vehicles having speeds that are almost a throwback to WWI as well.

legio mortis
17-08-2008, 02:43
A two meter beam of what? Is it stated? Was it armor grade material or poor quality brittle metal with fatigue?
It's unstated, but a missile plowing through six feet of building-grade metal isn't normal today.



Writing style does not prove it any more objective. All that might show is they have a more subtle propaganda writer than the bombastic and blatant one in the Guard primer. In-character sources are inherently suspect.
Have you even read the Munitorum Manual? The way that the equipment and logistical stuff is presented usually doesn't drip of propaganda as the primer is. It's much more frank. Here (http://www.blacklibrary.com/pdf/mm1.pdf) is the online preview with the piece. It's on page twelve. Make your own judgement, as I've made mine.


The Imperium does not win through superior technology.
And nobody said it did. I'm saying that their vehicles are very hard to kill and have extremely heavy firepower.



Its tanks have listed speeds slower than tanks from the Cold War era.
And it's guns have power that was only found on real world battleships. It's armor can take direct hits from hyper-velocity AT shells and keep fighting.



Its infantry are mostly unmechanized and march to their objectives.
Just because a force of infantry isn't mechanized doesn't mean that it marches everywhere. From every source I've gathered, if they're not mechanized, they're motorized.



The Cadians at the Battle of Tyrok Fields even attacked in lined up Napoleonic like lines
From what source? The propaganda painting? I'd take those as seriously as I'd take Triumph of the Wills.



and the Death Korps of Krieg are a replica of WWI warfare
Their siege regiments, yeah. That's the point.



with their special vehicles having speeds that are almost a throwback to WWI as well.
As I've said, that's the point. Do you expect the Malcador to be speeding around the battlefield?

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 03:08
Have you even read the Munitorum Manual? The way that the equipment and logistical stuff is presented usually doesn't drip of propaganda as the primer is. It's much more frank. Here (http://www.blacklibrary.com/pdf/mm1.pdf) is the online preview with the piece. It's on page twelve. Make your own judgement, as I've made mine.

Again it does not change anything. Just because it is not blatantly dripping over the top exaggerated propaganda doesn't mean it is any more reliable. Once again, in-character sources on anything in 40K are suspect precisely because the 40K era is an age of superstition and (deliberate) misinformation. This is an era where ignorance is seen as a virtue.




And nobody said it did. I'm saying that their vehicles are very hard to kill and have extremely heavy firepower.


The implication you and others have been trying to show is certainly one of "OMG They're Imperials and from the future! They must be superior in every way over our own tech!"



It's armor can take direct hits from hyper-velocity AT shells and keep fighting.


So have modern MBT's.



Just because a force of infantry isn't mechanized doesn't mean that it marches everywhere. From every source I've gathered, if they're not mechanized, they're motorized.


Au contraire. Read the Taros campign or the detailed article on the Battle of Tyrok Fields. The Guardsmen in both cases marched their way to the battlefield and entered battle on foot. In Vraks, the Death Korps was transported by rail to rear line depots and then also marched to the front.



From what source? The propaganda painting? I'd take those as seriously as I'd take Triumph of the Wills.

Of course not. The source is the article describing the battle from the start of the treachery to Creed finally sending in his regiment in parade ground formation, soaking up the enemy's firepower with the bodies of his men.




As I've said, that's the point. Do you expect the Malcador to be speeding around the battlefield?

In a modern battlefield where mobility is survival and also translates into the ability to be more threatening and fluid on operational and strategic levels, yes. Tanks that could not (or only barely) outpace a human on foot went out after WWI.

legio mortis
17-08-2008, 03:34
Again it does not change anything. Just because it is not blatantly dripping over the top exaggerated propaganda doesn't mean it is any more reliable. Once again, in-character sources on anything in 40K are suspect precisely because the 40K era is an age of superstition and (deliberate) misinformation. This is an era where ignorance is seen as a virtue.
I fail to see how this particular piece of evidence is now suspect when the information all over that document is correct. Please point out to me where the propaganda is.



The implication you and others have been trying to show is certainly one of "OMG They're Imperials and from the future! They must be superior in every way over our own tech!"
No, what I'm trying to do is dispel the implication "OMG They're Imperials, so they must suck!" I've never said that they're superior in every single way.



So have modern MBT's.
That's not the point. The point is that they're very competitive, if not better than modern tanks, not worse than Chinese knockoff T-55s.



Read the Taros campign
The infantry was mechanized, yet the stupid commander ordered them to advance on foot. It's not the way the army was intended to be used.



In Vraks, the Death Korps was transported by rail to rear line depots and then also marched to the front.
Yet they were mechanically transported somehow. Motorized infantry don't ride their transports all the way to the battle.



Of course not. The source is the article describing the battle from the start of the treachery to Creed finally sending in his regiment in parade ground formation, soaking up the enemy's firepower with the bodies of his men.
Quote the source please. I find this extremely suspect, given the Cadian Shock Troop's reputation as highly competent and tactical fighters, and Creed's reputation as a highly competent commander.



In a modern battlefield where mobility is survival and also translates into the ability to be more threatening and fluid on operational and strategic levels, yes. Tanks that could not (or only barely) outpace a human on foot went out after WWI.
You miss my point. The trenches of Vraks or Baran aren't a modern battlefield. Thus, tanks like the Malcador fit just fine.

Havock
17-08-2008, 03:43
I'm really not so sure that the IG infantry are better equipt than some of the best infantry around today, especially if you look ahead just 5 years. Guns that shoot around corners, smart ammunition that tracks the target for you, fire and forget anti tank weapons, thermal/night vision sights (typical guard appear to have only iron sights), individual HUDs for each soldier.

Guardsmen have weapons that can track and kill armored humans through concrete walls.
As in; blow large holes or vaporize a good portion of their torso.

Try that with anything below a .50 cal :p

And about IG vehicles, enither FW nor GW seems to understand the ' qualities' required by a tank (suspension comes to mind), ignore that stuff, the low ground speed is merely there to make Tau & Eldar look fast :p

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 03:58
I fail to see how this particular piece of evidence is now suspect when the information all over that document is correct. Please point out to me where the propaganda is.


Any in-character source in 40K by default is suspect particularly when it is in-character information on one's own side. In-character sources introduce the possibility of bias or in-character motives and also lack the omniscient viewpoint that can give objective statements about the way things are. At best, they are fallible reports of how the characters view things. At worst they can be deliberately misinforming as in the case of IG publications. Misinformation or inaccuracy is less easily spotted when it's subtle. Again just because something isn't over the top like the laughably blatant primer doesn't suddenly render it a reliable source.



No, what I'm trying to do is dispel the implication "OMG They're Imperials, so they must suck!" I've never said that they're superior in every single way.


I never said they were inferior in everyway. The Imperium does have technology that the modern world doesn't have. However, their equipment and ways of fighting in other ways is distinctly primitive and outdated despite this.



That's not the point. The point is that they're very competitive, if not better than modern tanks, not worse than Chinese knockoff T-55s.


Their slow speed and poor geometry suggests they are competitive only by number, not by quality. Physics does not change (unless one involves Chaos but that is not an issue here).



The infantry was mechanized, yet the stupid commander ordered them to advance on foot. It's not the way the army was intended to be used.


Incorrect, the Tallarn infantry forces were not mechanized. Don't make things up. IA3 Taros Campaign shows the Table of Organization for the 17th Tallarn, which is one of the "standard" Tallarn infantry regiments in that campaign. In that Table on p.258, one of their standard companies is listed along with a breakdown of their equipment. Under vehicles: 3 Sentinels, 1 Samaritan. Not a Chimera in sight. That is not mechanized infantry.

And before one attempts to bring up the Elysians or the Cadians in that campaign, the point was not that there are no mechanized or mobile infantry in the Imperium but rather they are far more infrequent than comparable modern forces, with the bulk of the IG infantry still unmechanized.



Quote the source please. I find this extremely suspect, given the Cadian Shock Troop's reputation as highly competent and tactical fighters, and Creed's reputation as a highly competent commander.


Aus WD 283 p. 59-63

"In the centre, the 8th advanced as if on the parade ground with banners flying. The Volscani saw them coming and turned every available weapon from their Leviathans on them. Huge gaps were torn in the Cadian ranks by mega-bolters and macrocannon but they were immediately filled"

Marching in parade ground like formation with big waving banners in human lines to be mowed down by fire is Napoleonic era or WWI era at best.

The same is repeated in the 13th Black Crusade book, p.18-19, and is the only detailed account of the Battle of Tyrok Fields.

Havock
17-08-2008, 04:11
Yeah, that was silly, though that was probably a severe case of plotdevicing and character shielding ;)

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 04:17
Honestly, I don't think that Imperial war technology is intended to be portrayed as out of date compared to modern times.

When GW built the Leman Russ with a square hull instead of a sloped hull, I don't think their intention was for us to infer "Well, IG tanks are inferior to the Abrams", I think they were merely trying to echo an historical period, just like with the rather absurd portrayal of so many battles as Napoleonic in formation.

Anyone who is trying to compare IG tactics or IG technology to modern day is just completely missing the point.

We know that the Tanks and tactics cannot be that horrible, because the Imperium conquered the galaxy for goodness sake. The obvious inference? GW doesn't know what tanks are supposed to be like, and the portrayal of infantry tactics is meant to be stylized and evocative. And if they are that horrible, then in this 40k universe they are effective.

I reject entirely the premise that knowledge of modern military technology allows you to judge the Imperium in what is clearly a fantasy setting, not meant to be reflective of any sort of scientific reality.

Why keep arguing about this? Its completely pointless and utterly banal.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 04:18
Creed's success may have been plot armor but the makeup of his forces wasn't. In the Imperial Codex it presents the Cadian 8th as a "typical" Imperial Guard infantry regiment, and infantry regiments are described as making up the bulk of the Guard. In the layout of the 8th, only a small number of Chimeras are present, nowhere near enough to qualify the 8th as a mechanized regiment.

If the 8th is a typical infantry regiment, and if the 8th is unmechanized, therefore the typical infantry regiment in the Imperial Guard is unmechanized.


Honestly, I don't think that Imperial war technology is intended to be portrayed as out of date compared to modern times.

When GW built the Leman Russ with a square hull instead of a sloped hull, I don't think their intention was for us to infer "Well, IG tanks are inferior to the Abrams", I think they were merely trying to echo an historical period, just like with the rather absurd portrayal of so many battles as Napoleonic in formation.

Anyone who is trying to compare IG tactics or IG technology to modern day is just completely missing the point.


Anyone trying to think IG tactics or IG technology is supra-modern is completely missing the point of 40K. It isn't an era where technology saves the day. It is an era where human blood and sacrifice and numbers save the day.



We know that the Tanks and tactics cannot be that horrible, because the Imperium conquered the galaxy for goodness sake. The obvious inference? GW doesn't know what tanks are supposed to be like, and the portrayal of infantry tactics is meant to be stylized and evocative.

No, the obvious inference is the Guard is numerous enough to prevail despite its inadequacies in equipment. The Guard's equipment is rugged and simplistic for ease of use and manufacture and that is where it excels compared to modern equipment. However in terms of individual performance, in multiple areas it has been shown to be inferior. For the Imperium and the Guard, that individual inferiority is acceptable if it means they can field more bodies or vehicles.

Although 40K is a science-fiction, or science-fantasy if one wants to quibble about labels, it is not devoid entirely from any link with reality. The Imperial Guard more so than other factions is not reliant on the "crutch" of magic or the warp to justify its abilities so it is entirely appropriate to apply what is known about how the universe functions in reality to how things might work in 40K. Realspace physics (note emphasis on realspace, so don't involve the warp in this) in 40K is meant to be the same physics the real world operates under.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 04:41
Anyone trying to think IG tactics or IG technology is supra-modern is completely missing the point of 40K. It isn't an era where technology saves the day. It is an era where human blood and sacrifice and numbers save the day.

No, I perfectly understand that. The Imperium is not meant to be portrayed as hyper advanced compared to say, the Tau or the Eldar, or other "advanced sci-fi" civilizations that we have often seen.



No, the obvious inference is the Guard is numerous enough to prevail despite its inadequacies in equipment. The Guard's equipment is rugged and simplistic for ease of use and manufacture and that is where it excels compared to modern equipment. However in terms of individual performance, in multiple areas it has been shown to be inferior. For the Imperium and the Guard, that individual inferiority is acceptable if it means they can field more bodies or vehicles.

This is where your understanding of 40k is overstated, simplistic, and strained IMHO.

If you took a modern Abrams tank (and this is even leaving out something hyperadvanced, like say, a monolith or a Fire Prism) and you set them against a huge squad of Sherman tanks from WWII, the Abrams tank would still win. The Abrams has more armor, better firepower, better mobility, etc etc etc. We've seen this in the two Gulf wars - Iraq fields old school cold war style tanks - and, engagement after engagement the US tanks absolutely devastate them - destroying hundreds, all the while, no Abrams tank has EVER been lost to enemy tank fire.

There is a point where numbers simply don't make up for that kind of inferiority.

And its not just that. Your argument would, I think, have merit if the Leman Russ was portrayed in the game or in Fluff as cheap and completely inferior, but so numerous that it simply swarmed the enemy.

In game, the Leman Russ is arguably one of the most superior tanks in any army's codex. Its front armor is the equivalent of a Land Raider, which is meant to be some awesome technological relic of the DAOT, and it is one of the few tanks to have the ordnance battle cannon on it.

So, what do we take this to mean? That the other races are so poor in their development of armored vehicles that they have yet to match the firepower and armor of a style of tank obsolescent before World War II here on Earth, despite constant talk about how uber advanced they are and how awesome their control of nature is? Or merely that GW doesn't know its head from its ass as regards to tanks and should probably just be left alone, and that the Leman Russ' style is just an homage to an historical period, as is common to the IG in 40k?

Do I think that the Imperium's tanks are meant to be super futuristic and superior to those of their enemies? No, not really. Do I think that their look and "statistics" provided via Imperial Armor should be taken seriously as pertains to how a tank so constructed would perform in the 40k universe? No.

All in all, I still see this as desperate tank-ophiles wanting to apply their knowledge of military history where it doesn't belong - in a fantasy sci-fi setting.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 05:02
If you took a modern Abrams tank (and this is even leaving out something hyperadvanced, like say, a monolith or a Fire Prism) and you set them against a huge squad of Sherman tanks from WWII, the Abrams tank would still win. The Abrams has more armor, better firepower, better mobility, etc etc etc. We've seen this in the two Gulf wars - Iraq fields old school cold war style tanks - and, engagement after engagement the US tanks absolutely devastate them - destroying hundreds, all the while, no Abrams tank has EVER been lost to enemy tank fire.

There is a point where numbers simply don't make up for that kind of inferiority.

And who ever said the difference was of that magnitude or always had to be of that magnitude? No one. Tank differences in the past have not always been of such insurmountable gaps in performance. The Panzer IV was inferior to the T-34 yet remained in service and in production all the way to the end of WWII because despite its inferiority it was still somewhat competitive. Likewise American Shermans were inferior to German Panthers and Tigers in absolute performance but not to the point that the German tanks could totally ignore American armored formations.

The point is the Leman Russ is inferior in mobility, profile, and possibly protection to modern tanks on an individual level. That does not necessarily mean an Abrams might not have to still take some caution with it particularly given no real world parallel to the secondary lascannon in the Russ, just that in individual one on one, the Leman Russ is at a disadvantage. The Leman Russ might be the equivalent of the glass hammer in a match against an Abrams.




And its not just that. Your argument would, I think, have merit if the Leman Russ was portrayed in the game or in Fluff as cheap and completely inferior, but so numerous that it simply swarmed the enemy.


Try looking at past Epic editions then. The IG Leman Russ tanks were threatening because of their numbers, not particularly because of their individual qualities.



In game, the Leman Russ is arguably one of the most superior tanks in any army's codex. Its front armor is the equivalent of a Land Raider, which is meant to be some awesome technological relic of the DAOT, and it is one of the few tanks to have the ordnance battle cannon on it.

Once again look to Epic instead of remaining purely blinkered by 40K. The Leman Russ is not particularly remarkable on a larger scale. The Land Raider as described in one of my previous quotes achieves its protection using a very thin layer of composites. The Leman Russ achieves its protection using a presumably far thicker amount of lesser material. The fact they achieve similar protection doesn't change the fact the Land Raider is more advanced than the Leman Russ as it does so with less.



So, what do we take this to mean? That the other races are so poor in their development of armored vehicles that they have yet to match the firepower and armor of a style of tank obsolescent before World War II here on Earth, despite constant talk about how uber advanced they are and how awesome their control of nature is? Or merely that GW doesn't know its head from its ass as regards to tanks and should probably just be left alone, and that the Leman Russ' style is just an homage to an historical period, as is common to the IG in 40k?

That other races do not place the emphasis on armor at all costs that the Imperium does. The Eldar have a stronger material in wraithbone, unit for unit, than the Imperium's adamantium (stated in 2nd ed. and 4th ed. Eldar Codex) yet they don't armor their vehicles to become massive slabs of armor precisely because their way of warfare and doctrine favors mobility at all costs. Similarly, the Tau have superior materials technology to the Imperium as described in IA3 where the Fire Warrior's armor again outperforms equivalent Imperial plasteel on a unit for unit basis and is lighter, yet the Tau also choose to favor mobility more than sheer armor.

These alien races have stronger materials but their response then is to use less of it in order to keep mass down and mobility high.



Do I think that the Imperium's tanks are meant to be super futuristic and superior to those of their enemies? No, not really. Do I think that their look and "statistics" provided via Imperial Armor should be taken seriously as pertains to how a tank so constructed would perform in the 40k universe? No.


What you as an individual think is not relevant to what the canonical GW universe is. GW has stated certain facts about their 40K universe: Chaos lost the Heresy, Abaddon won the 13th Black Crusade, Behemoth lost vs the Ultramarines. No amount of individual fan denial changes those facts and the same goes for the performance characteristics of the equipment. A kilometer per hour is a kilometer per hour in 40K or the real world. The canonical speed of the Leman Russ has been given repeatedly by multiple GW sources and they have all been subpar compared to modern vehicles. It is canonical therefore that the Leman Russ is slow.



All in all, I still see this as desperate tank-ophiles wanting to apply their knowledge of military history where it doesn't belong - in a fantasy sci-fi setting.

All I see is a desperate fan in denial over the evidence mounting to show the Imperium's technology and armed forces don't necessarily and automatically WTF PWN modern technology. The "science" bit in 40K means there is some element of the real world applicable. Just because there are fantastic elements does not mean one has to accept blithely that anything and everything is possible.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 05:32
And who ever said the difference was of that magnitude or always had to be of that magnitude? No one. Tank differences in the past have not always been of such insurmountable gaps in performance.

Actually simple logic does, as I point out below.


The Panzer IV was inferior to the T-34 yet remained in service and in production all the way to the end of WWII because despite its inferiority it was still somewhat competitive. Likewise American Shermans were inferior to German Panthers and Tigers in absolute performance but not to the point that the German tanks could totally ignore American armored formations.

This is a completely irrelevant and invalid argument. The technological gap between the tanks you describe is of a completely different magnitude to that that would be expected between what is the equivalent of a 1930's armored vehicle and an armored fighting vehicle of a space empire that had existed for millions of years.

I am just comparing the modern M1A2 Abrams tank with a Cold War era Iraqi tank. Essentially saying that the tech gap would be smaller between a tank that came before the Iraqi tank and a tank that came later than the Abrams tank is utter nonsense.


The point is the Leman Russ is inferior in mobility, profile, and possibly protection to modern tanks on an individual level. That does not necessarily mean an Abrams might not have to still take some caution with it, just that in individual one on one, the Leman Russ is at a disadvantage.

Read above.



Once again look to Epic instead of remaining purely blinkered by 40K. The Leman Russ is not particularly remarkable on a larger scale. The Land Raider as described in one of my previous quotes achieves its protection using a very thin layer of composites. The Leman Russ achieves its protection using a presumably far thicker amount of lesser material. The fact they achieve similar protection doesn't change the fact the Land Raider is more advanced than the Leman Russ as it does so with less.

Yes, but here I am talking about a matter of PERFORMANCE.

Its irrelevant if the Land Raider's armor is made out of "composites" or plastics or bat guano for all I care, if what you in fact get is the same level of performance as the Leman Russ' thick layers of multisteel (and the Leman Russ and Land Raider move at the same speed as well, IIRC.)

Your argument here in fact supports my general argument (which you seem to have missed the subtlety of):

One of two things has to be true in order to keep the 40k universe somewhat coherent -

Either the Leman Russ is not properly represented by the statistics provided by GW in its "several sources", and therefore is able to compete on the battlefields of the 41st milennium as WE are traditionally shown that it can, knowing that an armored vehicle possessing its statistics would be obsolescent and combat ineffective TODAY, let alone 40,000 years in the future against super civilizations

OR

For some reason, what is the equivalent of an interwar period tank is a viable and efficient combat vehicle in the 41st millennium, thus negating any point to making a comparison between modern vehicles and the statistics we have been presented with



That other races do not place the emphasis on armor at all costs that the Imperium does. The Eldar have a stronger material in wraithbone, unit for unit, than the Imperium's adamantium (stated in 2nd ed. and 4th ed. Eldar Codex) yet they don't armor their vehicles to become massive slabs of armor precisely because their way of warfare and doctrine favors mobility at all costs. Similarly, the Tau have superior materials technology to the Imperium as described in IA3 where the Fire Warrior's armor again outperforms equivalent Imperial plasteel on a unit for unit basis and is lighter, yet the Tau also choose to favor mobility more than sheer armor.

None of your argument is really historically sound, and I think you are being shortsighted.

Tanks, for example, in the era of WWII had to really make the choice between armor and protection or speed.

But if you take one of the heaviest tanks from the WWII era, the King Tiger, and look at it relative to the modern US Abrams tank, you see that, in armor and firepower they are roughly equal, while the Abrams has an engine that allows it to go faster and for longer. The Abrams tank is a MAIN BATTLE TANK, while the King Tiger was meant to be a heavy tank.

At a sufficient level of mastery of materials and engineering, the sacrifice between armor and mobility begins to make less and less sense, because less material can produce the same amount of protection.

But we know that however much and whatever form of protection is being uised on the Eldar and Tau vehicles, it IS NOT the equivalent of the layers of steel used on the front of a Leman Russ in functionality.

Therefore, you are still left with tanks that, however their engineering is done, are fundamentally inferior in capabilities to a tank that is the equivalent of a 1930's interwar medium tank.



What you as an individual think is not relevant to what the canonical GW universe is. GW has stated certain facts about their 40K universe: Chaos lost the Heresy, Abaddon won the 13th Black Crusade, Behemoth lost vs the Ultramarines. No amount of individual fan denial changes those facts and the same goes for the performance characteristics of the equipment. A kilometer per hour is a kilometer per hour in 40K or the real world. The canonical speed of the Leman Russ has been given repeatedly by multiple GW sources and they have all been subpar compared to modern vehicles. It is canonical therefore that the Leman Russ is slow.

Once again, missing the point.




All I see is a desperate fan in denial over the evidence mounting to show the Imperium's technology and armed forces don't necessarily and automatically WTF PWN modern technology.

Then you have obviously completely and utterly missed the point of what I have been trying to say, not surprising since you seem to be focused in all your posts on "exposing" what you see as other people's "denial" (i.e. not completely agreeing with you), the more they disagree the more childish and confrontational your tone becomes.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 05:58
This is a completely irrelevant and invalid argument. The technological gap between the tanks you describe is of a completely different magnitude to that that would be expected between what is the equivalent of a 1930's armored vehicle and an armored fighting vehicle of a space empire that had existed for millions of years.

The Imperium has only existed for 10,000 years not millions of years and has been next to virtually stagnant for all 10,000 of those. Stop with the made up "facts" and hyperbole. That also ignores the fact the Imperium itself was founded after a Dark Ages-like collapse of the technological civilization that preceded it.

The Imperium's edge in certain areas of technlogy would be the only thing that would keep the Leman Russ somewhat comparable. The Leman Russ's engine's ability to function on unprocessed raw material as fuel is something modern tanks cannot do. Long term ease of logistical maintenance and overall durability of equipment is what the Imperium's tech base is good at, with systems lasting centuries and still being in functional order. There is also the matter of certain items of technology with no essential modern parallels like the Leman Russ's lascannon. We are not yet at the stage of vehicular portable laser weaponry being mass produced.



I am just comparing the modern M1A2 Abrams tank with a Cold War era Iraqi tank. Essentially saying that the tech gap would be smaller between a tank that came before the Iraqi tank and a tank that came later than the Abrams tank is utter nonsense.

We are talking about comparing modern tanks to tanks from a fictional universe that have similar performance characteristics in some respects to early 20th century tanks. We aren't comparing interwar tanks to Abrams. There is a difference there. As above, the areas where the Leman Russ performs superiorly to modern tanks in certains areas such the fact they can run on unrefined fuel and can still be in working order for decades or centuries after being mothballed. Those areas where the Leman Russ has superior performance and the sheer numbers it is fielded in is what may keep it viable.




For some reason, what is the equivalent of an interwar period tank is a viable and efficient combat vehicle in the 41st millennium, thus negating any point to making a comparison between modern vehicles and the statistics we have been presented with

The above reason is what holds true. It is a viable tank despite its shortcomings because those areas where it exceeds modern tank performance in reliability and ease of manufacture and maintenance are more important to a galaxy spanning empire that deals in mind bogglingly large forces. That does not however make a comparison to modern vehicles impossible. All it means is that a modern tank may outperform a Russ on a one for one basis, but may still mean the ultimate victory of massed seemingly endless Russ formations that keep coming long after an Abrams has run out of fuel, ammunition, or broken down from maintenance difficulties.



Tanks, for example, in the era of WWII had to really make the choice between armor and protection or speed.

But if you take one of the heaviest tanks from the WWII era, the King Tiger, and look at it relative to the modern US Abrams tank, you see that, in armor and firepower they are roughly equal, while the Abrams has an engine that allows it to go faster and for longer. The Abrams tank is a MAIN BATTLE TANK, while the King Tiger was meant to be a heavy tank.

The whole development of the MBT concept came about from a recognition of the importance of mobility and also as a result of sufficiently powerful engine technology and light materials technology. The existence of the MBT parallels the line of thought pursued by the Eldar and Tau, namely recognition of the value of mobility and the diminishing returns of simply adding on heavier armor.



At a sufficient level of mastery of materials and engineering, the sacrifice between armor and mobility begins to make less and less sense, because less material can produce the same amount of protection.

The performance characteristics of the anti-grav units of the Eldar and Tau are not known. We do not know what weights they can handle for a given compact anti-grav unit. All we do know is they are capable of incredible mobility (see below). To achieve that level of mobility, a far more significant sacrifice in armor may be required.




But we know that however much and whatever form of protection is being uised on the Eldar and Tau vehicles, it IS NOT the equivalent of the layers of steel used on the front of a Leman Russ in functionality.

Therefore, you are still left with tanks that, however their engineering is done, are fundamentally inferior in capabilities to a tank that is the equivalent of a 1930's interwar medium tank.

They have abilities no tank has today, namely the ability to float over all terrain, and for the Eldar at least, flight. IA2 lists the max speed of a Wave Serpent (to which a Falcon is presumably similar) as 320kph. That is a speed no tank on Earth comes even close to matching. Nobody complains that an aircraft or helicopter has thinner armor than a 1930's interwar tank. A tank formation with the strategic mobility of aircraft? That exceeds any modern tank's capabilities and might be argued to be a worthwhile trade-off. For the Eldar certainly they seem to think so. All the Eldar's means of large scale defense focus more around misdirection and what amounts to ECM, in a manner complementary and subordinate to their prized mobility. Actual physical armor protection appears to rank quite low on the Eldar design priorities. Again given the strategic mobility advantages leading to Eldar forces being able easily to outpace and outmaneuver Imperial forces, such a sacrifice may be justified.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 06:38
The Imperium has only existed for 10,000 years not millions of years and has been next to virtually stagnant for all 10,000 of those. Stop with the made up "facts" and hyperbole. That also ignores the fact the Imperium itself was founded after a Dark Ages-like collapse of the technological civilization that preceded it.

By "a space empire millions of years old" I was referring to the Eldar, who possess tanks which are, in game, inferior to the Leman Russ in many ways, including armor and offensive firepower.


The Imperium's edge in certain areas of technlogy would be the only thing that would keep the Leman Russ somewhat comparable. The Leman Russ's engine's ability to function on unprocessed raw material as fuel is something modern tanks cannot do. Long term ease of logistical maintenance and overall durability of equipment is what the Imperium's tech base is good at, with systems lasting centuries and still being in functional order.

I don't buy this, and neither the fluff nor the game portray it this way.

No matter how functional or mass-production worthy the Leman Russ is, and no matter how easily it is supplied in the field, if it is completely inefficient in combat, to the extent that tens if not hundreds of Russes are lost for every enemy tank destroyed (as I have argued via history that any tank of comparable statistics would be) then there is little reason to continue to use it. And if they DID continue to use it, they would lose. Simple as that. We know the Imperial Guard does not usually lose, therefore I find this all very unconvincing.

More below


We are talking about comparing modern tanks to tanks from a fictional universe that have similar performance characteristics in some respects to early 20th century tanks. We aren't comparing interwar tanks to Abrams. There is a difference there.

You're kind of missing my point again. I am hypothesizing about the kind of combat efficiency one would expect from a Leman Russ in the 40k universe.

If one sees that Cold War era tanks are absolutely ineffective against Abrams tanks, why would one expect a tank (however fictional) with combat characteristics extremely similar to that of an interwar tank (which is technologically inferior to a Cold War tank) to be able to fare decently in combat against a super sci fi future tank (like that of the Tau or Eldar) with greatly enhanced combat abilities to that of an Abrams?

It makes no sense. We wouldn't expect that at all, yet more or less, that is what we get in 40k.

And it isn't just that the Imperial Guard "swamps then with numbers to make up for their inferiority". When tanks are outranged and outgunned in the way that even tanks split a generation apart are, numbers DON'T make up for the blatant lack of competitiveness on the part of the older tanks. Sending more tanks in is just sending in more iron coffins, regardless of how long they can run or how logistically efficient they are.

The fluff always portrays the Imperial Guard as a war machine of attrition, which loses many more men than the enemy but ends up causing the enemy enough casualties to win out in the end. But attrition doesn't work when you are utterly outclassed to the extent a Leman Russ would be against some future tank. It doesn't even work as a slowing down force.

What I am saying is, the statistics that GW gives DO NOT correspond to common sense based on the fluff and the stats within the game.

It is one thing to say that the Russ is a mediocre tank in the fluff that makes up for its mediocrity in numbers - that I would understand and that is at least somewhat believable given the fluff and game rules. But the stats given don't indicate mediocrity - they indicate impotence .




As above, the areas where the Leman Russ performs superiorly to modern tanks in certains areas such the fact they can run on unrefined fuel and can still be in working order for decades or centuries after being mothballed. Those areas where the Leman Russ has superior performance and the sheer numbers it is fielded in is what may keep it viable.

See above argument against this same point.



The whole development of the MBT concept came about from a recognition of the importance of mobility and also as a result of sufficiently powerful engine technology and light materials technology. The existence of the MBT parallels the line of thought pursued by the Eldar and Tau, namely recognition of the value of mobility and the diminishing returns of simply adding on heavier armor.

Yes, but with modern MBTs (which I assume are relatively inferior to whatever it is the Tau and Eldar are fielding) there doesn't have to be a sacrifice of armor and firepower to achieve good mobility, you just need mastering of physics and metallics (which the Tau and Eldar would have.)



The performance characteristics of the anti-grav units of the Eldar and Tau are not known. We do not know what weights they can handle for a given compact anti-grav unit. All we do know is they are capable of incredible mobility (see below). To achieve that level of mobility, a far more significant sacrifice in armor may bve required.

Then I would say that the Eldar and Tau are much more limited in their mastery of metallurgy and craft than I would expect given their backgrounds.

It isn't that difficult by modern standards to make extremely fast and extremely well armored and extremely offensive tanks, with the right combination of knowledge and engineered materials.

Assuming that the Eldar, if given the option, would have both the extraordinarily fast tanks as you described, and have those tanks have excellent firepower and armor, then we can only assume they CAN'T have both, which just doesn't make sense given their fluff IMHO.

Joe Kutz
17-08-2008, 06:38
In game, the Leman Russ is arguably one of the most superior tanks in any army's codex. Its front armor is the equivalent of a Land Raider, which is meant to be some awesome technological relic of the DAOT, and it is one of the few tanks to have the ordnance battle cannon on it.

Once again look to Epic instead of remaining purely blinkered by 40K. The Leman Russ is not particularly remarkable on a larger scale. The Land Raider as described in one of my previous quotes achieves its protection using a very thin layer of composites. The Leman Russ achieves its protection using a presumably far thicker amount of lesser material. The fact they achieve similar protection doesn't change the fact the Land Raider is more advanced than the Leman Russ as it does so with less.

Actually if you take a look at the listed stats in the Forge World books - it becomes fairly apparent that you can not make an apples to apples comparison and conclude that because the Land Raider has a high armor and is advanced...if the Leman Russ has a high armor, it must also be advanced.

In this case, the thickest armor on the Land Raider is listed at 95 mm thick. The thinnest armor on the Leman Russ is 150 mm (the thickest being 200 mm which would probably correspond to the 14 AR).


All in all, I still see this as desperate tank-ophiles wanting to apply their knowledge of military history where it doesn't belong - in a fantasy sci-fi setting.

Nope, I prefer not to even attempt to compare modern (or even historical...or hypothetical) real equipment to 40K. However their is significant fluff available which allows conclusions to be drawn about the various arms and equipment, as well as tactics.

I also tend to pop in with quotes from various books as opposed to generalized statements, since most people haven't bothered to drop a couple thousand dollars on the various books over the last couple decades. People who are interested can read the quotes I provide and make up there own minds based off from what I read to draw my own conclusions. After all, when you want to talk about speculation and incongruence...GW is the king. They will kill off entire races, and pretend like they never existed - why not change hypothetical stats on tanks which were designed to look cool first, and generally have no bearing on what physics might actually say in terms of how they might behave.

Case in point...

When it fired, the breech of the main gun hurtled back into the turret space with one hundred and ninety tonnes of recoil force.

Now I will accept GWs notes about materials which don't exist and weapons which don't exist...but recoil is something that does exist, and can be used to make a number of calculations and justifiable extrapolations...but there is a problem.

In the description of the Demolisher cannon and how it gets fired in the Imperial Armor books - it doesn't quite make sense with a significant amount of recoil:


The Vindicator is armed with a demolisher cannon, which fires rocket assisted siege shells. The round contains a small, solid-propellant fuelled rocket engine which powers the warhead. The propellant is shaped in such a way as to control the time and rate of burn, and hence the thrust and duration of the rocket in flight. This produces good accuracy for the size of shell being fired.

The major drawback of the rocket-assisted shell is that the gases produced by the rocket blast build up to dangerous levels in the barrel behind the shell. With no way of evacuating the over-pressure created by the gas build up, the shell or barrel can deform during firing, or at worst cause the barrel to burst. Venting the gases during firing solves this problem. When ignited the rocket gases are immediately extracted and directed, via dusting, to two exhaust vents on top of the hull. These vents are positioned just behind the targeting array.

Now, while there is always some recoil (physics and all) when you are dealing with these problems - there is normally not a significant amount of recoil...and no where near that stated in the prior sources. Now if I had to guess where the big number came from...I would wager that a BL author grabbed an old WWII fact book and took a look at what the recoil was of a battleship firing its equally large bore guns, as opposed to spending a few minutes to determine a realistic recoil based on potential masses and muzzle velocities (irregardless of whether or not it uses a chemical/plasma/nuclear warhead when it hits).


No matter how functional or mass-production worthy the Leman Russ is, and no matter how easily it is supplied in the field, if it is completely inefficient in combat, to the extent that tens if not hundreds of Russes are lost for every enemy tank destroyed (as I have argued via history that any tank of comparable statistics would be) then there is little reason to continue to use it. And if they DID continue to use it, they would lose. Simple as that. We know the Imperial Guard does not usually lose, therefore I find this all very unconvincing.

Yes - they are inferior to Eldar APCs according to their own fluff. I had referenced the situation above already regarding the encounter of an IG Tank Battlegroup and a dozen Eldar Waveserpents and Falcons (I would classify Falcons as a fighting vehicle...sort of half way between an APC and a tank). The entire Battlegroup, including 2 super heavies were halted in their tracks and forced to withdraw. They think that they managed to destroy 5 of the Eldar tanks (though 3 were unconfirmed). The complete section can be found in IA volume 1 - and shows three battle groups getting toyed with by Eldar tanks and aircraft.


Battle Group Ostalan, with 10 battle tanks and 2 super heavy tanks, reported enemy sniper fire. One tank was disabled by an enemy proximity fused plasma mine, left as a booby trap.

At 551 reconnaissance elements identified a fast moving formation of 12 enemy 'skimmer' vehicles moving over the Karsundi River - most likely 'Falcon' and 'Wave Serpent' types. Lieutenant Talbor requested and was given permission to withdraw. Lead elements of Battle Group Ostalan moved to engage the enemy. The enemy counter was headed off in fierce fighting. Reports of enemy infantry with heavy weapon support halted the Battle Group's advance.

Battle Group Ostalan Loss Report
a. Complete Loss: 2 Leman Russ battle tanks, 3 Chimera armoured carriers.
b. Badly Damaged: 3 Leman Russ battle tanks, 2 Chimera armoured carriers, 1 Salamander Scout vehicle.
c. Slight Damage: 1 Baneblade, 1 Chimera carrier.
d. Casualties: 14 KIA, 13 seriously wounded, 30 lightly wounded.
e. Enemy Losses: (Unconfirmed) 3 Falcons, 44 Infantry. (Confirmed) 2 Falcons, 19 Infantry.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 06:57
Yes - they are inferior to Eldar APCs according to their own fluff. I had referenced the situation above already regarding the encounter of an IG Tank Battlegroup and a dozen Eldar Waveserpents and Falcons (I would classify Falcons as a fighting vehicle...sort of half way between an APC and a tank). The entire Battlegroup, including 2 super heavies were halted in their tracks and forced to withdraw. They think that they managed to destroy 5 of the Eldar tanks (though 3 were unconfirmed). The complete section can be found in IA volume 1 - and shows three battle groups getting toyed with by Eldar tanks and aircraft.

See, this in more in the lines of what I would realistically expect a tank that the Imperials would field in masses to be like.

The Imperial Guard can easily afford to lose a handful of tanks and a damaged Baneblade in order to take down three falcons and kill 44 immortal Eldar who can't be replaced. That is the kind of area of attrition I would expect the Guard to operate in, especially against their most advanced and tactically sound opponent - but I don't think that rate of exchange would be possible if the Guard were truly fielding circa 1930's tanks.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 07:06
No matter how functional or mass-production worthy the Leman Russ is, and no matter how easily it is supplied in the field, if it is completely inefficient in combat, to the extent that tens if not hundreds of Russes are lost for every enemy tank destroyed (as I have argued via history that any tank of comparable statistics would be) then there is little reason to continue to use it. And if they DID continue to use it, they would lose. Simple as that. We know the Imperial Guard does not usually lose, therefore I find this all very unconvincing.


You underestimate the scale of the Imperium. The Imperium is of a size where it CAN sustain such loss exchange rates when outmatched in quality.



You're kind of missing my point again. I am hypothesizing about the kind of combat efficiency one would expect from a Leman Russ in the 40k universe.

If one sees that Cold War era tanks are absolutely ineffective against Abrams tanks, why would one expect a tank (however fictional) with combat characteristics extremely similar to that of an interwar tank (which is technologically inferior to a Cold War tank) to be able to fare decently in combat against a super sci fi future tank (like that of the Tau or Eldar) with greatly enhanced combat abilities to that of an Abrams?


Because those grav tanks are armored like aircraft. Modern aircraft of today would still fare badly if hit by WWII tank shells. How advanced they are doesn't translate into durability.



And it isn't just that the Imperial Guard "swamps then with numbers to make up for their inferiority". When tanks are outranged and outgunned in the way that even tanks split a generation apart are, numbers DON'T make up for the blatant lack of competitiveness on the part of the older tanks. Sending more tanks in is just sending in more iron coffins, regardless of how long they can run or how logistically efficient they are.

The fluff always portrays the Imperial Guard as a war machine of attrition, which loses many more men than the enemy but ends up causing the enemy enough casualties to win out in the end. But attrition doesn't work when you are utterly outclassed to the extent a Leman Russ would be against some future tank. It doesn't even work as a slowing down force.

It is one thing to say that the Russ is a mediocre tank in the fluff that makes up for its mediocrity in numbers - that I would understand and that is at least somewhat believable given the fluff and game rules. But the stats given don't indicate mediocrity - they indicate impotence .


The Eldar and Tau armor are described as being able to run rings about equivalent Imperial formations. Once again your point seems to boil basically down to personal disbelief and denial of the scale of the attritional style the Imperium operates under. It doesn't matter if only 1 in 100 Leman Russ tanks manages to score a hit against a Falcon as the Imperium can field such huge forces. The Falcon is built more like an aircraft than a tank in durability so when that rare hit does occur it can take a lot of damage.

Where the Imperium for whatever reason does have difficulty fielding such numbers, then it should be expected they would lose and they did as demonstrated on Taros, where the Imperium only deployed a comparably sized armored force instead of overwhelming numbers. The Tau grav-tanks repeatedly outmaneuvered and outfought the Imperial tanks. The only time they came out worse was when they actually had to hold ground against the Imperial advance and that would be comparable to matching tanks versus aircraft in a slugging match.




Yes, but with modern MBTs (which I assume are relatively inferior to whatever it is the Tau and Eldar are fielding) there doesn't have to be a sacrifice of armor and firepower to achieve good mobility, you just need mastering of physics and metallics (which the Tau and Eldar would have.)


See below for the additional design limitations and constraints involved in having a tank capable of flight.




Then I would say that the Eldar and Tau are much more limited in their mastery of metallurgy and craft than I would expect given their backgrounds.

It isn't that difficult by modern standards to make extremely fast and extremely well armored and extremely offensive tanks, with the right combination of knowledge and engineered materials.

It doesn't say anything about Eldar or Tau material tecnology as flight has certain requirements to be able to work.

It is difficult to make a tank that is capable of flight. That is the point you are missing. Eldar and Tau tanks have that capability that no tank on Earth have, and have some overlap with aircraft in that respect. The need to remain light is something all aircraft have to deal with. We have no idea what the physics behind anti-grav in 40K is, and thus have no idea what are the practical limitations of anti-grav units. However we have certain points that suggest certain limits. Certainly we know the Eldar are the masters of it and the only known race with super heavy anti-grav tanks. The only compact anti-grav the Imperium has are in either expensive rare civilian vehicles or in small lightweight combat vehicles like Land Speeders. This suggests there are significant difficulties in constructing anti-grav units both powerful yet compact. Hence weight is not an insignificant issue. When weight becomes a significant issue, then sacrificing thickness of armor to save on weight becomes reasonable.



Assuming that the Eldar, if given the option, would have both the extraordinarily fast tanks as you described, and have those tanks have excellent firepower and armor, then we can only assume they CAN'T have both, which just doesn't make sense given their fluff IMHO.

The Eldar have been shown repeatedly in multiple areas of 40K from personnel, to vehicular, to starship levels to value mobility, firepower, and armor in that descending order of priority. The Eldar are supposedly advanced but they are not omnipotent. They have limitations so it is not incongruent in the least for them to not be able to have it all. They have chosen mobility and firepower over armor. The Imperium by contrast values firepower and armor over mobility.

Joe Kutz
17-08-2008, 07:10
No, they are not 1930s tanks - however the Russ is far from advanced (other than possibly materials and bigger guns).

I think of IG armored vehicles like fishing with dynamite. They throw a big explosion out there and manage to get a few fish to float up from the bottom. It isn't elegant. It isn't accurate, and all the fluff I have seen which isn't immediately contradicted in another BL book (which is why I don't rely on BL books for much of anything when it is presented in a GW or Forgeworld book which is considered to be sanctioned fluff).

BTW - remember those unconfirmed kills are in an action log which is filed up the chain of command. I would suspect the unconfirmed kills to be inflated so that the officer in charge of the Battlegroup doesn't end up receiving disciplinary actions for loosing 14 armored vehicles to the Xenos.


Then I would say that the Eldar and Tau are much more limited in their mastery of metallurgy and craft than I would expect given their backgrounds.

It isn't that difficult by modern standards to make extremely fast and extremely well armored and extremely offensive tanks, with the right combination of knowledge and engineered materials.

Can't speak for certain of the Tau - but the Eldar is a fluff versus balance versus GW's favorite sons issue. Eldar don't deal with metallurgy - they deal with Wraithbone. Wraithbone is always (from the old Rogue Trader/early WD days till the most recent Codex) described as being stronger than adamantium (strongest thing the Empire has to work with) - but flexible. The actual in game statistics for Eldar vehicles do not reflect this. If they did, along with their high speed and other defenses, the points cost would be prohibitive.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 07:29
There is another example of how poorly IG tanks can perform if one looks in Apocalypse at the Cloudstrike squadron entry, it describes how a single squadron of 3 tanks accomplished the destruction of 60 Imperial tanks over the course of 2 days after trapping the Imperial armored column in a narrow gorge, with the Imperial tanks unable to bring their weapons to bear effectively on their airborne attackers.



Can't speak for certain of the Tau - but the Eldar is a Fluff versus balance versus GW's favorite sons issue. Eldar don't deal with metallurgy - they deal with Wraithbone. Wraithbone is always described as being stronger than adamantium (strongest thing the Empire has to work with) - but flexible. The actual in game statistics for Eldar vehicles do not reflect this. If they did, along with their high speed and other defenses, the points cost would be prohibitive.

I would argue the Eldar have their high speed because of their incredibly strong wraithbone, allowing them to use much less material and save on weight. Where the Eldar do not adopt this approach, such as with Wraithguard or Wraithlords, they end up with quite sturdy (but slow for Eldar) constructs. It is a similar parallel to how more RL advanced composite armor technology allowed for the replacement of conventional steel to yield comparable protection at weight savings, allowing for improved mobility.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 07:45
You underestimate the scale of the Imperium. The Imperium is of a size where it CAN sustain such loss exchange rates when outmatched in quality.

It isn't the point of whether they can sustain them. The question is could they sustain them and eventually reach some sort of tactical advantage? Hardly. Losses are pointless if you don't make some kind of gain from them.

Remember what I said? NOT ONE Abrams tank EVER lost to an enemy tank.




Because those grav tanks are armored like aircraft. Modern aircraft of today would still fare badly if hit by WWII tank shells. How advanced they are doesn't translate into durability.

Your logic once again fails. Why would the Eldar be willing to make the Speed-Armor trade off if that left them vulnerable enough to actually be hit by Mon'Keigh armor?

You can say "Oh the Eldar value speed over armor and firepower" all you want, but that still leads to the reality that they willingly leave themselves vulnerable unnecessarily, and thus are quite stupid.

One cannot just say that they value it and that is that, and that explains why they choose to field tanks that leave them vulnerable to exceedingly primitive Mon'Keigh constructs.




The Eldar and Tau armor are described as being able to run rings about equivalent Imperial formations.

Ok, well I am not disagreeing with that little bit.


Once again your point seems to boil basically down to personal disbelief and denial of the scale of the attritional style the Imperium operates under.

And your entire Modus Operandi seems to be to try to position it where you can present what I am saying as "personal opinion" so you can whip out your favorite, "OMG GW SEZ IT SO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT SRSLY" line.

If by personal opinion you mean reasoned arguments based on historical fact, trying to show that "statistics" generated by game designers don't jibe with the other elements of their fluff, then yes.

Is it fluff that a 1000 man space marine chapter could conquer an entire star system? Yes. Does that make sense? No, not given even the most shallow understanding of military reality.

Would you then argue that its just "personal opinion" that this is stupid fluff that should be disregarded, or simply try to reconcile it by saying that this is a science fantasy universe that doesn't follow our rules? I would argue that little "facts" like that come out for the same reason that "facts" like the statistics of the Leman Russ come out - the guys at GW aren't military experts.

As I said - it is perfectly possible to take your line of thought - but that still leads to the second option within my dichotomy - that, for whatever reason, the equivalent of an interwar medium tank is an effective weapon of war in the 41st millennium, and thus any meaningful comparisons with modern tech don't shed any real light on the situation BECAUSE we are sooooo far from believable. I'm willing to believe in a sci-fi universe with fantastic elements like primitive tanks taking on super light space future elf tanks, but I am not willing to take stats from that universe and compare them with real life stuff and think that that gives me any insight whatsoever.



It doesn't matter if only 1 in 100 Leman Russ tanks manages to score a hit against a Falcon as the Imperium can field such huge forces.

It does matter - it matters in terms of morale, it matters in terms of the strategic situation, it matters in terms of the fragility of the war machine as a whole.

But, again, you're missing the point. The Imperium couldn't even get that 1/100 hit with 1930's era tank turrets and weapons for a variety of reasons.



The Falcon is built more like an aircraft than a tank in durability so when that rare hit does occur it can take a lot of damage.

Again, you have taken this, "Falcons are like aircraft. Falcons are like aircraft." mantra and ran with it hard.


Where the Imperium for whatever reason does have difficulty fielding such numbers, then it should be expected they would lose and they did as demonstrated on Taros, where the Imperium only deployed a comparably sized armored force instead of overwhelming numbers. The Tau grav-tanks repeatedly outmaneuvered and outfought the Imperial tanks. The only time they came out worse was when they actually had to hold ground against the Imperial advance and that would be comparable to matching tanks versus aircraft in a slugging match.

Then of course we have to be sure not to confuse technological inferiority to a failure in tactical and strategic leadership.

If you are a "canon purist" as you seem to be, one has to realize that the Imperium was able, during the Damocles Crusade, to conquer a rather large portion of the Tau Empire with something like 12 battleships and 50 regiments of Imperial Guard (roughly equivalent to 150,000 men).

I doubt that that was "overwhelming" numerically against the Tau on their own home turf.

Imperial strategy isn't necessarily solely based on attrition, but that is a separate matter and not the point of this thread.



When weight becomes a significant issue, then sacrificing thickness of armor to save on weight becomes reasonable.

The difference is that aircraft which are constructed with light armor are not MEANT to engage tanks on a field of battle. Their high speed plays only a rather minimal part in that - it is their altitude that really protects them from such considerations.

The Eldar don't field their anti-grav tanks in that way. They fly them around at ground level, perfectly vulnerable to such things as lascannon shots and battle cannon fire.

I think your reasoning falls apart right there, and honestly I'm not even sure to what extent this has a bearing on the argument as a whole.



They have chosen mobility and firepower over armor. The Imperium by contrast values firepower and armor over mobility.

German world war 2 tanks chose armor and firepower over mobility. Modern US tanks, I would argue, value armor and mobility over firepower, yet we have no problem matching German WWII tanks in terms of firepower.

Once again, I don't think your argument flies, and once again, I think it is tangential to the larger point

Joe Kutz
17-08-2008, 08:18
I would argue the Eldar have their high speed because of their incredibly strong wraithbone, allowing them to use much less material and save on weight. Where the Eldar do not adopt this approach, such as with Wraithguard or Wraithlords, they end up with quite sturdy (but slow for Eldar) constructs. It is a similar parallel to how more RL advanced composite armor technology allowed for the replacement of conventional steel to yield comparable protection at weight savings, allowing for improved mobility.

No, it is stated clearly and often that the source of the Eldar tanks mobility lies in their anti-grav technology which is "far beyond the comprehension of the tech priests of Mars." Assuming you accept the concept of anti-gravity devices, once you overcome the weight of the vehicle...nothing else matters. You could have a guy sit on the back and blow in order to get moving to a descent clip.

Anywho, the issue is that the Eldar tanks are very well armored, very fast and very well armed according to the fluff. There really isn't any compromise to it. The game mechanics do not reflect this though (same could be said for most things - but more often than not, the Eldar seem to be shown as superlative accept in numbers). This is shown most clearly in an analysis report by a munitions adept in Imperial Armor II. It covers several of the variant hover tanks and expounds on how much stronger the weapons are, how much better the sensors are, how much faster the vehicles are, how strong the unnatural material is...

The Wraith constructs are slow due to wraith sight. If you look at a Revenant titan - it can dance around the battle field. No speed issues.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 08:19
It isn't the point of whether they can sustain them. The question is could they sustain them and eventually reach some sort of tactical advantage? Hardly. Losses are pointless if you don't make some kind of gain from them.

And the fact remains the Imperium DOES make gains despite these losses. The Imperium has been fighting the Eldar on Lammas for 15 years and still going, sustaining those lopsided exchange rates and are still advancing. Slowly perhaps but still making gains or at the least holding their territory.



Remember what I said? NOT ONE Abrams tank EVER lost to an enemy tank.


So? You cling too much to one instance and one anecdote. How things worked in one particular war is not how they will always work.




Your logic once again fails. Why would the Eldar be willing to make the Speed-Armor trade off if that left them vulnerable enough to actually be hit by Mon'Keigh armor?

You can say "Oh the Eldar value speed over armor and firepower" all you want, but that still leads to the reality that they willingly leave themselves vulnerable unnecessarily, and thus are quite stupid.

It is the same trade-off that modern aircraft make. You might as well ask why we build planes that aren't as heavily armored as tanks and wonder why they would be willing to leave themselves vulnerable to being hurt if by a tank shell. The point being the capabilities provided by being light and able to fly provide more advantage.



One cannot just say that they value it and that is that, and that explains why they choose to field tanks that leave them vulnerable to exceedingly primitive Mon'Keigh constructs.

Given the previous noted performances against Imperial tanks in fluff and the performance of high speed Falcons with holo-fields on the table top, you overstate their vulnerability.




And your entire Modus Operandi seems to be to try to position it where you can present what I am saying as "personal opinion" so you can whip out your favorite, "OMG GW SEZ IT SO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT SRSLY" line.

GW does say it. You don't own the IP so what you or anyone else voices as personal opinion against what is delineated in official publication doesn't hold any sway over the canonical universe.



Is it fluff that a 1000 man space marine chapter could conquer an entire star system? Yes. Does that make sense? No, not given even the most shallow understanding of military reality.

If you read the background, must of those "conquests" are ultimately the result of capitulation of the government.



It does matter - it matters in terms of morale, it matters in terms of the strategic situation, it matters in terms of the fragility of the war machine as a whole.

The Imperium has sacrificed literally hundreds of worlds to stall Leviathan and still stands. The kind of exchange rate you talk about pales in comparison. Heavy losses not only occur but are expected in 40K unlike the modern world which strives deliberately to keep losses down.



Again, you have taken this, "Falcons are like aircraft. Falcons are like aircraft." mantra and ran with it hard.

It is thoroughly backed up by the data on Falcon and Wave Serpent speeds, which are more in line with aircraft than any ground based vehicle. Consider also the Eldar armor is given in IA2 to measure 10-15mm on a Wave Serpent. That is a incredibly thin amount of material and once more parallels the fact that modern aircraft though indisputably more advanced than WWII tanks still would not be able to take a tank shell.




If you are a "canon purist" as you seem to be, one has to realize that the Imperium was able, during the Damocles Crusade, to conquer a rather large portion of the Tau Empire with something like 12 battleships and 50 regiments of Imperial Guard (roughly equivalent to 150,000 men).

Please get your basic fluff at least partially right before attempting to debate at least. It was not a large portion of the Tau Empire in the slightest. The Damocles Crusade destroyed small outlying colonies lacking particular defenses and stalled at the first major Sept world they encountered. Your estimates of the size of the Imperial force are also grossly off. It was 5 companies of Marines, 12 regiments, and 12 capital ships. Capital ships in 40K does not necessarily denote battleships either. In BFG capital ship applies to anything bigger than an escort.

What the Damocles Crusade amounted to was a pitifully small force that ran into significant trouble at their first major target, and that was forced to ultimately withdraw when supplies and reinforcements were not forthcoming from the rear lines.




The difference is that aircraft which are constructed with light armor are not MEANT to engage tanks on a field of battle. Their high speed plays only a rather minimal part in that - it is their altitude that really protects them from such considerations.

Helicopters are aircraft too, and they can engage tanks at low altitudes. Once again, nobody complains that they are not armored like tanks because it is not their purpose to be so.



The Eldar don't field their anti-grav tanks in that way. They fly them around at ground level, perfectly vulnerable to such things as lascannon shots and battle cannon fire.

See Cloudstrike squadron entry for how the Eldar utilize their anti-grav capabilities for limited flight.

It was already mentioned how their speed and holofields act as their protection. They are far less vulnerable than you make them out to be.




German world war 2 tanks chose armor and firepower over mobility. Modern US tanks, I would argue, value armor and mobility over firepower, yet we have no problem matching German WWII tanks in terms of firepower.

That is because of technological advancement in multiple fields in the years since then. The 40K era is not one of continuous advancement. It is one of at best rigid stasis, maybe the occasional re-discovery (as opposed to original advancement), to one of technological regression. You are pre-supposing a social and technological paradigm that does not exist for the 40K era.




No, it is stated clearly and often that the source of the Eldar tanks mobility lies in their anti-grav technology which is "far beyond the comprehension of the tech priests of Mars." Assuming you accept the concept of anti-gravity devices, once you overcome the weight of the vehicle...nothing else matters. You could have a guy sit on the back and blow in order to get moving to a descent clip.

Eldar anti-grav technology being beyond the comprehension of the tech priests does not translate into them being unlimited in capability or power. The Eldar are capable of ubiquitous anti-grav technology, so their super heavies can have a mobility that no other race's super heavy tanks can match. Inertia does matter. It isn't merely about weight. Notice how both Tau and Eldar anti-grav vehicles (or even the Imperial ones for that matter) end up having jet engines to propel them? The anti-grav merely negates the weight and makes them float. It doesn't apparently negate the inertia, which is why you still need powerful engines to propel and maneuver them.



Anywho, the issue is that the Eldar tanks are very well armored, very fast and very well armed according to the Fluff. There really isn't any compromise to it. The game mechanics do not reflect this though (same could be said for most things - but more often than not, the Eldar seem to be shown as superlative accept in numbers). This is shown most clearly in an analysis report by a munitions adept in Imperial Armor II. It covers several of the variant hover tanks and expounds on how much stronger the weapons are, how much better the sensors are, how much faster the vehicles are, how strong the unnatural material is...

It's never been said in the fluff that Eldar tanks are very well armored. They are very fast and very well armed. Wraithbone is strong unit for unit but look at the listed armor thicknesses. It is 10-15mm for a Wave Serpent. That the Eldar can attain the level of physical protection they do with such thin material shows how strong their material is. The overall protection of their tanks and Titans however has always relied more on their speed and holofield misdirection causing misses rather than being actually well armored. Eldar Revenants are capable of their mobility because they also have jets on them to propel them. The fact the Revenants have legs with jets only being an aid to movement, instead of being purely anti-grav propelled, suggests even the Eldar cannot accomplish pure anti-grav propulsion for something of that size.

The Wraith constructs are slow due to wraith sight. If you look at a Revenant titan - it can dance around the battle field. No speed issues.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 08:59
And the fact remains the Imperium DOES make gains despite these losses. The Imperium has been fighting the Eldar on Lammas for 15 years and still going, sustaining those lopsided exchange rates and are still advancing. Slowly perhaps but still making gains or at the least holding their territory.

No, arguing against you is like ramming your head against a brick wall. You're a question begger of the highest extent.

I am arguing that they make those gains because THEY ARE NOT LOSING that badly.

The Imperium isn't losing hundreds of tanks for every one of the enemies they bring down. They aren't even losing a dozen for every one of the enemies they bring down.

Therefore they have to be faring better than common sense says they would with Interwar tanks.

Its not that I do not understand the nature of Imperial warfare, I do. Even given the massive imbalance of losses, there is simply no way that the Imperium is fighting with 1930's tanks. No way. Period.




So? You cling too much to one instance and one anecdote. How things worked in one particular war is not how they will always work.

It isn't one anecdote, it is two. And, it is a deliberate underestimate. I compared the Abrams and Cold War tanks for the very reason that they are nowhere NEAR the gulf that would exist between your version of the Leman Russ and something like a Falcon, so that you could not even begin to say things just like what you said.





It is the same trade-off that modern aircraft make. You might as well ask why we build planes that aren't as heavily armored as tanks and wonder why they would be willing to leave themselves vulnerable to being hurt if by a tank shell. The point being the capabilities provided by being light and able to fly provide more advantage.

I would ask that question if airplanes flew at ground level and fulfilled the role of MBTs, yes I would.



GW does say it. You don't own the IP so what you or anyone else voices as personal opinion against what is delineated in official publication doesn't hold any sway over the canonical universe.

That really isn't the point. I'm not saying they should "change the canonical universe" I am saying that the canonical universe doesn't make sense if one tries to compare it with modern statistics, and thus doing so is pointless, and simply a form of intellectual masturbation rather than an informed analysis of the background.

If you want to disprove what I am saying, you are going to have to do better than lay down dogma. I already know YOU don't agree. I don't care. That isn't even why I am arguing to begin with.

Unless you can prove to me why it is REALISTIC that a primitive interwar tank could function in the year 40,000 under the known conditions, then I consider this argument over, and will refuse to participate further.



If you read the background, must of those "conquests" are ultimately the result of capitulation of the government.

That somehow makes it more realistic and less of a farce?



The Imperium has sacrificed literally hundreds of worlds to stall Leviathan and still stands. The kind of exchange rate you talk about pales in comparison. Heavy losses not only occur but are expected in 40K unlike the modern world which strives deliberately to keep losses down.

Again - in big letters this time, cause you keep missing it, NOT THE POINT.

The strategy of attrition assumes that you gain some form of advantage by waging a battle in which you lose vastly more than your enemy. But the advantage of attrition is null and void if, along with losing soldiers, you don't harm the enemy.

A tech gap in tanks that like in WWII would be understandable, after all, the US had about ten sherman tanks for every one good heavy tank the Germans had.

A tech gap like that between Cold War and modern is too great a bridge to cross however, and I assume it would only get more extreme as time passes.

Attrition is only a viable tactic if you can strike back. With interwar tanks, you wouldn't be able to.



It is thoroughly backed up by the data on Falcon and Wave Serpent speeds, which are more in line with aircraft than any ground based vehicle. Consider also the Eldar armor is given in IA2 to measure 10-15mm on a Wave Serpent. That is a incredibly thin amount of material and once more parallels the fact that modern aircraft though indisputably more advanced than WWII tanks still would not be able to take a tank shell.

1. Why is this relevant to the argument at large?

2. I dispute the entire premise of your argument. To state that Falcons and Wave Serpents go as fast as aircraft and thus don't need armor, when they are in fact still serving the MBT role, is silly.

So the Eldar would be completely unprepared to face, say, an army such as Necrons or DAOT humans who could travel as fast as they could, and deliver much more punch?



Please get your basic fluff at least partially right before attempting to debate at least. It was not a large portion of the Tau Empire in the slightest. The Damocles Crusade destroyed small outlying colonies lacking particular defenses and stalled at the first major Sept world they encountered. Your estimates of the size of the Imperial force are also grossly off. It was 5 companies of Marines, 12 regiments, and 12 capital ships. Capital ships in 40K does not necessarily denote battleships either. In BFG capital ship applies to anything bigger than an escort.

It doesn't really matter - my point still stands, unless you seriously believe that even on all those ill defended worlds the Tau had less than 36,000 soldiers?

The very fact that the Imperium could wage a war that penetrated to a sept world with that tiny of an army indicates that it isn't ALL about numbers.


What the Damocles Crusade amounted to was a pitifully small force that ran into significant trouble at their first major target, and that was forced to ultimately withdraw when supplies and reinforcements were not forthcoming from the rear lines.

So, if the Imperium can only win via hardcore attrition in which they outnumber their enemy a hundred times over, why would they even invade an interstellar empire with what amounts to something the size of a medieval field army?





Helicopters are aircraft too, and they can engage tanks at low altitudes. Once again, nobody complains that they are not armored like tanks because it is not their purpose to be so.

Yes, but it IS the Falcon and or Serpents purpose to engage and destroy enemy tanks and infantry. They are not analogous to aircraft or helicopters simply because the kind of resistance they are expected to face is different, and it only makes sense that they would be prepared accordingly.


It was already mentioned how their speed and holofields act as their protection. They are far less vulnerable than you make them out to be.

That isn't the point. Why are they vulnerable at all if they don't have to be? And if they DO have to be, then why is an interwar tank so advanced that it is BY NECESSITY a challenge to a hyperadvanced space tank?



That is because of technological advancement in multiple fields in the years since then. The 40K era is not one of continuous advancement. It is one of at best rigid stasis, maybe the occasional re-discovery (as opposed to original advancement), to one of technological regression. You are pre-supposing a social and technological paradigm that does not exist for the 40K era.

Nice, but completely irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the stagnant Imperial technology, I am talking about the technology of the rest of the galaxy.

Even assuming that the Eldar are in "rigid stasis", given their background I would assume they entered "rigid stasis" at a point somewhere quite superior to that of Western Europe circa 1930.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 09:26
I am arguing that they make those gains because THEY ARE NOT LOSING that badly.

The Imperium isn't losing hundreds of tanks for every one of the enemies they bring down. They aren't even losing a dozen for every one of the enemies they bring down.

See the above bit from Apocalypse where the Imperium lost 60 tanks for 0 kills. They DO take such heavy losses.





I would ask that question if airplanes flew at ground level and fulfilled the role of MBTs, yes I would.

As already mentioned, the Falcons are not limited to flying at ground level all the time. Their thin armor is their tradeoff for being able to accomplish their flight.



Unless you can prove to me why it is REALISTIC that a primitive interwar tank could function in the year 40,000 under the known conditions, then I consider this argument over, and will refuse to participate further.


The classic approach of one who knows they are holding an ultimately untenable losing position. If that's your manner of admitting loss with some face saving, up to you.





The strategy of attrition assumes that you gain some form of advantage by waging a battle in which you lose vastly more than your enemy. But the advantage of attrition is null and void if, along with losing soldiers, you don't harm the enemy.

A tech gap in tanks that like in WWII would be understandable, after all, the US had about ten sherman tanks for every one good heavy tank the Germans had.

A tech gap like that between Cold War and modern is too great a bridge to cross however, and I assume it would only get more extreme as time passes.

Attrition is only a viable tactic if you can strike back. With interwar tanks, you wouldn't be able to.

As others have already made the point, the Leman Russ has some characteristics in common with 1930 or 1940 era tanks but exceeds modern tanks in some ways. You keep bringing up the phrase interwar tanks as if they are a carbon copy from that era, which they are not, despite their similarities.





1. Why is this relevant to the argument at large?

2. I dispute the entire premise of your argument. To state that Falcons and Wave Serpents go as fast as aircraft and thus don't need armor, when they are in fact still serving the MBT role, is silly.

They serve as more than a MBT role. They serve in a hybrid gunship role as well. Aircraft don't need to be armored to the point of surviving tank shells because they try to avoid being hit physically in the first place, which is the same purpose served by the Faclon's speed, the holofield upgrade, and the Wave Serpent's force field. All of those accomplish the role of enhancing protection without degrading the performance of the vehicle with dead weight.



So the Eldar would be completely unprepared to face, say, an army such as Necrons or DAOT humans who could travel as fast as they could, and deliver much more punch?

The Necrons don't travel as fast as the Eldar however, not in the fields of planetary warfare. In space, where the Necrons do have straight line speed though the Eldar still have maneuverability, the Eldar DO struggle. It just shows the Eldar are not infallible and omnipotent and that their trade-offs are not always of equal value.





It doesn't really matter - my point still stands, unless you seriously believe that even on all those ill defended worlds the Tau had less than 36,000 soldiers?

They likely did. The fish farms were so insignificant it wasn't considered worth the bother of an actual assault. Those were barely settled outposts. At the first actual heated resistance on Da'lyth the Imperial advance stalled utterly. The Imperials did not make any significant advances precisely because they had insufficient forces to overcome their qualitative inferiority on the ground with numbers.



The very fact that the Imperium could wage a war that penetrated to a sept world with that tiny of an army indicates that it isn't ALL about numbers.

Incorrect conclusion. The Imperium could penetrate that far because the Imperium's space forces were superior to the Tau space forces, not because of ground superiority, and because the Tau were taken by surprise. It was the first time a major interstellar power had taken the offensive to the Tau.




So, if the Imperium can only win via hardcore attrition in which they outnumber their enemy a hundred times over, why would they even invade an interstellar empire with what amounts to something the size of a medieval field army?

Religious and ideological reasons ever cross your mind? The Crusade was launched at relative short notice in response to alien infiltration of worlds and economies. The ease with which the initial Tau emissary ships were destroyed by Imperial pickets likely led to arrogance and over-confidence. Also there was the likely expectation there would be follow-up reinforcements, reinforcements that never arrived due to Behemoth showing up and taking higher priority.



Yes, but it IS the Falcon and or Serpents purpose to engage and destroy enemy tanks and infantry. They are not analogous to aircraft or helicopters simply because the kind of resistance they are expected to face is different, and it only makes sense that they would be prepared accordingly.

They are analogous to ground attack aircraft and helicopters, and they are already prepared accordingly with their various defenses that consist of methods other than slabs of armor. A ground attack helicopter does not have to be as heavily armored as the tanks it hunts.




That isn't the point. Why are they vulnerable at all if they don't have to be? And if they DO have to be, then why is an interwar tank so advanced that it is BY NECESSITY a challenge to a hyperadvanced space tank?

They are lightweight because they need to be. They need to be in order to accomplish their flight and mobility. That has been stated over and over again, which you still somehow fail to grasp.

It has also been shown that the Leman Russ is not an equal match against a Falcon if the Falcon is free to move. It isn't a direct challenge to the grav tank. When the Falcon is unable to move and has to actually take the hit, then that is no different from an advanced helicopter or aircraft of today being in a shooting range and being hit by a WWII tank cannon. If you deliberately use the Falcon in a situation or fashion it is not meant to be used for, then of course it will not perform well.





Nice, but completely irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the stagnant Imperial technology, I am talking about the technology of the rest of the galaxy.

Even assuming that the Eldar are in "rigid stasis", given their background I would assume they entered "rigid stasis" at a point somewhere quite superior to that of Western Europe circa 1930.

You seem inordinately hung up over this 1930 bit. How many times must it be said by me and other posters that just because some aspects of the Leman Russ are inferior that not all aspects of it have to be carbon copies from the 20th century?

And as has already been repeated multiple times, advanced doesn't necessarily equate to being durable. You keep trying to compare a hybrid tank-gunship to a dedicated tank and expecting the gunship to be stand in a straight slugging match when that is not its design purpose.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 10:05
See the above bit from Apocalypse where the Imperium lost 60 tanks for 0 kills. They DO take such heavy losses.

Yes, on rare and exceedingly negative occasions when they are caught with their tactical pants down. Those sort of situations are not really what I am talking about. Attrition doesn't mean being caught in an unfortunate massacre.



The classic approach of one who knows they are holding an ultimately untenable losing position. If that's your manner of admitting loss with some face saving, up to you.

LOL, what are you nine years old? You have completely and utterly failed to grasp most of my argument, and have simply repeated over and over nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand. What I stated is exactly what I have been arguing about the entire time. You have not even begun to attack the real heart of my argument - instead you have danced around it and continually brought up nonsense about Eldar tanks being aircraft and other similiar distractions.

I'm sure in your little world that means a victory, but luckily I live in the real world.



As others have already made the point, the Leman Russ has some characteristics in common with 1930 or 1940 era tanks but exceeds modern tanks in some ways. You keep bringing up the phrase interwar tanks as if they are a carbon copy from that era, which they are not, despite their similarities.

It doesn't matter what kind of fuel the Leman Russ uses - whoopedoo they use magical phlebotinum fuel. That has nothing to do with the argument at large - which are their combat characteristics.

They share primitive profiles, low speeds, presumably a roughly similiar armament. Those are the things that are relevant to the discussion at hand.



They serve as more than a MBT role. They serve in a hybrid gunship role as well. Aircraft don't need to be armored to the point of surviving tank shells because they try to avoid being hit physically in the first place, which is the same purpose served by the Faclon's speed, the holofield upgrade, and the Wave Serpent's force field. All of those accomplish the role of enhancing protection without degrading the performance of the vehicle with dead weight.

Yes, but as an earlier poster said, Wraithbone isn't heavy and it is very hard to penetrate. You are telling me that, what is the equivalent of a jet tank couldn't go more than 150 mph if it added on another inch of armor? I don't buy that. Frankly, I think it is game balance, but c'est la vie.



They likely did. The fish farms were so insignificant it wasn't considered worth the bother of an actual assault. Those were barely settled outposts. At the first actual heated resistance on Da'lyth the Imperial advance stalled utterly. The Imperials did not make any significant advances precisely because they had insufficient forces to overcome their qualitative inferiority on the ground with numbers.

I find the idea that 32,000 men could conquer a planet at all quite laughable in and of itself. It is hardly befitting of a juggernaught that operates though pure attrition.




Religious and ideological reasons ever cross your mind? The Crusade was launched at relative short notice in response to alien infiltration of worlds and economies. The ease with which the initial Tau emissary ships were destroyed by Imperial pickets likely led to arrogance and over-confidence. Also there was the likely expectation there would be follow-up reinforcements, reinforcements that never arrived due to Behemoth showing up and taking higher priority.

I've never seen any reference to the likelihood of reinforcements honestly. Seems like you are once again making facts up.




They are analogous to ground attack aircraft and helicopters, and they are already prepared accordingly with their various defenses that consist of methods other than slabs of armor. A ground attack helicopter does not have to be as heavily armored as the tanks it hunts.

I thought it was a hovertank? Now it is an airplane and a ground attack helicopter?





They are lightweight because they need to be. They need to be in order to accomplish their flight and mobility. That has been stated over and over again, which you still somehow fail to grasp.

No. It has been ASSERTED falsely by you over and over again even though you have been contradicted by other posters. See the difference? Thought you might.

Just because you WANT it to be true because it suits your argument, doesn't mean it is.


It has also been shown that the Leman Russ is not an equal match against a Falcon if the Falcon is free to move. It isn't a direct challenge to the grav tank.

It is a direct challenge as shown by Joe Hutz' post. Leman Russ tanks can and do take down falcons, only, to their comparative casualty disadvantage.


If you deliberately use the Falcon in a situation or fashion it is not meant to be used for, then of course it will not perform well.

So, the MBT isn't meant to be used as an MBT? The point of being a hybrid is being able to do both things suitably well. If the Falcon is inferior to a 1930's tank in armor, then I don't think it stands very well as an MBT, regardless of its other duties.

Also, answer why we are arguing about this particular topic, or else I am cutting it out of my replies because I don't care.






You seem inordinately hung up over this 1930 bit. How many times must it be said by me and other posters that just because some aspects of the Leman Russ are inferior that not all aspects of it have to be carbon copies from the 20th century?

You've yet to point out an aspect that the Leman Russ doesn't share with a 1930's tank that has bearing on the discussion at large - i.e. its combat capabilities, rather than its long term strategic viability.


And as has already been repeated multiple times, advanced doesn't necessarily equate to being durable.

Why shouldn't it though? Is it your assertion that the Eldar are in fact, INCAPABLE of adding the dual protection of both armor and holofields and fast movement? If so, based on what, other than rampant speculation?


You keep trying to compare a hybrid tank-gunship to a dedicated tank and expecting the gunship to be stand in a straight slugging match when that is not its design purpose.

When did the Falcon become anything less than an actual tank? As far as I know, despite its capabilities, it does not play the role of an actual tactical aircraft or helicopter. It is simply an MBT that can fly.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 10:31
Yes, on rare and exceedingly negative occasions when they are caught with their tactical pants down. Those sort of situations are not really what I am talking about. Attrition doesn't mean being caught in an unfortunate massacre.

We don't know how rare or how representative those sorts of engagements are so you can't blithely dismiss them just because it's evidence against your point.





LOL, what are you nine years old? You have completely and utterly failed to grasp most of my argument, and have simply repeated over and over nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand. What I stated is exactly what I have been arguing about the entire time. You have not even begun to attack the real heart of my argument - instead you have danced around it and continually brought up nonsense about Eldar tanks being aircraft and other similiar distractions.

The points are directly relevant as you are attempting to compare apples to oranges and I am not responsible for your intellectual incapacity to grasp their relevance




It doesn't matter what kind of fuel the Leman Russ uses - whoopedoo they use magical phlebotinum fuel. That has nothing to do with the argument at large - which are their combat characteristics.

Trying to change the topic are we? I don't recall anywhere the discussion being limited purely to combat characteristics. Their long term maintenance, supply, and logistics are every bit as important to their overall value. The ability to keep a tank running is of critical importance as the Germans found out when their maintenance intensive tanks achieved poor readiness rates on the Eastern Front.



They share primitive profiles, low speeds, presumably a roughly similiar armament. Those are the things that are relevant to the discussion at hand.


And you are again attempting to define the topic avoiding those points that don't fit your argument. The topic was never purely about those points. Logistics has always been a factor in the discussion so do not attempt to pretend it was never raised as a topic.




Yes, but as an earlier poster said, Wraithbone isn't heavy and it is very hard to penetrate.

Your lack of reading ability is astounding. The earlier poster made no direct comment about wraithbone's weight or any statement that it isn't heavy. Don't put words into other poster's mouths.



You are telling me that, what is the equivalent of a jet tank couldn't go more than 150 mph if it added on another inch of armor? I don't buy that. Frankly, I think it is game balance, but c'est la vie.

If that extra inch is of a very dense material. Certainly adamantium is described as very dense, and wraithbone is described as being significantly superior. The logical inference is therefore wraithbone is also very dense.





I find the idea that 32,000 men could conquer a planet at all quite laughable in and of itself. It is hardly befitting of a juggernaught that operates though pure attrition.

Did you even bother to read the previous posts? 1) They didn't conquer the planet. They didn't even manage to conquer a significant portion of it 2) They were expecting followup reinforcements to bolster them. 3) They were buoyed up by arrogance as they had overrun barely inhabited outposts given them a skewed perception of the Tau. This over confidence other things led to them getting their fleet heavily damaged when they underestimated the threat of a Tau orbital station, and this same over confidence led to them attacking a major Tau Sept world without reinforcement first.





I've never seen any reference to the likelihood of reinforcements honestly. Seems like you are once again making facts up.

You mean like your disproven accusation that I was making up the statement regarding the Tyrok Fields field parade advance? I have not once made facts up in this thread.





I thought it was a hovertank? Now it is an airplane and a ground attack helicopter?


Do you have trouble grasping the concept of the Eldar anti-grav tank? It floats off the ground yet is also capable of limited flight, achieving a blend of the role of both hovertank and gunship.




No. It has been ASSERTED falsely by you over and over again even though you have been contradicted by other posters. See the difference? Thought you might.

Just because you WANT it to be true because it suits your argument, doesn't mean it is.

I have no "want" in this thread whatsoever. I have already addressed their points and shown that they are based on somewhat erroneous misreadings or inferences from the available evidence.




It is a direct challenge as shown by Joe Hutz' post. Leman Russ tanks can and do take down falcons, only, to their comparative casualty disadvantage.


And once again, the point was never that the Eldar are infallible or invulnerable. You seem to be operating under a misconception that just because the Eldar eventually take some losses they are suddenly unsuccessful.



So, the MBT isn't meant to be used as an MBT? The point of being a hybrid is being able to do both things suitably well. If the Falcon is inferior to a 1930's tank in armor, then I don't think it stands very well as an MBT, regardless of its other duties.


When its limited flight allows it to destroy many times its own number, then yes it does fulfill its purpose very well. You fail to grasp that the Falcon doesn't have to do the same thing in the same manner as the Imperium (ie face to face slugging match, taking hits on armor) in order to fill the same role.



Also, answer why we are arguing about this particular topic, or else I am cutting it out of my replies because I don't care.


The only reason we are arguing is because you are still putting your fingers in your ears despite quote evidence piling up to disprove your point. The Imperium does expend forces in huge numbers and it does manage to advance or hold territory. The logistical aspects of the Leman Russ for the Imperium at least serves to counter balance its inferiority on the field against those enemies that can outmatch it in quality. Once again if all this above posturing is just so you can save face when you concede, then save yourself the time.




You've yet to point out an aspect that the Leman Russ doesn't share with a 1930's tank that has bearing on the discussion at large - i.e. its combat capabilities, rather than its long term strategic viability.


You are again attempting to derail the discussion. Its long term strategic reliability has been an issue from the very beginning and is one of the most relevant aspects of the discussion.



Why shouldn't it though? Is it your assertion that the Eldar are in fact, INCAPABLE of adding the dual protection of both armor and holofields and fast movement? If so, based on what, other than rampant speculation?


It is based on multiple observations of Eldar technology. There has been no rampant speculation whatsoever. The fact that above a certain size limit, they use walkers instead of still more anti-grav propulsion. The fact that wraithbone outperforms adamantium suggests high density. The fact it is present in miniscule layers on Eldar vehicles suggest concerns other than simple physical protection.



When did the Falcon become anything less than an actual tank? As far as I know, despite its capabilities, it does not play the role of an actual tactical aircraft or helicopter. It is simply an MBT that can fly.

When this same mobility allows them to outmaneuver and destroy entire armored columns from the air or while descending from the air, then it fulfills that role.

Badger[Fr]
17-08-2008, 10:55
Just because it is in the future doesn't make everything in the Imperium advanced.
I do agree, but that's not how the Rogue Trader and several recent sources actually portrayed them Imperial Guard, and the whole Imperial technological level as well. A Lasgun or a Flak Armour may share some similarities with our 21th century gear, yet they are much more efficient: the RT states that Imperial Assault rifles, despite being much more advanced than ours (they have caseless ammunitions, are lighter and more reliable), are scarcly used by the Imperial Guard as they are often considered as unefficient and outdated. Imperial Guards despise Machine Guns and Autoguns, and call them "Cultist weapons". Check Dark Heresy: most firearms can scarcly penetrate Flak Armour, and are utterly useless against Carapace Armour. Demolisher and Earthshaker shells rely on a Plasma Core rather than just chemical explosives. Most, if not all Imperial weapons are just far more evolved than ours.

Iracundus's point of view relies on the assumption that, just because Imperial Weapons share some similarities with ours, they use the same technology and have the same efficiency, which is just plain wrong. BTW, I'm still waiting for his sources. Mines are the Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy, Necromunda, and the Munitiorum Manual.

Anyway, the fluff has never portrayed the Leman Russ as an unefficient Tank, even when it wasn't written from an Imperial point of view.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 10:56
We don't know how rare or how representative those sorts of engagements are so you can't blithely dismiss them just because it's evidence against your point.

You must be getting desperate because all your arguments are taking on a tinge of ad hominem now.

I don't know which point you think it is "evidence" against, but as I have already said, I believe that the Imperium has tremendous losses quite frequently, just that these losses aren't the equivalent of what would actually be the case with something like the technological difference we are discussing.



The points are directly relevant as you are attempting to compare apples to oranges and I am not responsible for your intellectual incapacity to grasp their relevance

Okay, so I am going to take this as you being unable to link this back to the actual argument. Gotcha. KTHXBYE.

Go ahead and try some weak ad hominem back.




Trying to change the topic are we? I don't recall anywhere the discussion being limited purely to combat characteristics.

You don't? Did you read the rest of the thread?

I posted a page back:

"No matter how functional or mass-production worthy the Leman Russ is, and no matter how easily it is supplied in the field, if it is completely inefficient in combat, to the extent that tens if not hundreds of Russes are lost for every enemy tank destroyed (as I have argued via history that any tank of comparable statistics would be) then there is little reason to continue to use it. And if they DID continue to use it, they would lose. Simple as that. We know the Imperial Guard does not usually lose, therefore I find this all very unconvincing."

The very helpful Joe Kutz posted a point of direct comparison - with the Imperial Guard versus the Eldar in a tank battle, wherein the losses were only on the order of 3 or 4 to one for the Imperial Guard, whereas, say, during Desert Storm, the losses were in the Hundreds and Thousands to None for the Iraqis in direct tank combat.



Their long term maintenance, supply, and logistics are every bit as important to their overall value. The ability to keep a tank running is of critical importance as the Germans found out when their maintenance intensive tanks achieved poor readiness rates on the Eastern Front.

See above.




And you are again attempting to define the topic avoiding those points that don't fit your argument. The topic was never purely about those points. Logistics has always been a factor in the discussion so do not attempt to pretend it was never raised as a topic.

I'm doing no such thing. Read above.





Your lack of reading ability is astounding. The earlier poster made no direct comment about wraithbone's weight or any statement that it isn't heavy. Don't put words into other poster's mouths.

No, I suppose you are right here. I did misread it.



You mean like your disproven accusation that I was making up the statement regarding the Tyrok Fields field parade advance? I have not once made facts up in this thread.

What? I never even mentioned Tyrok Fields. You must be thinking of someone else Iracundus.




Do you have trouble grasping the concept of the Eldar anti-grav tank? It floats off the ground yet is also capable of limited flight, achieving a blend of the role of both hovertank and gunship.

What you have failed to prove to me is what relevance this has to whether or not it is credible that a 1930's era tank would operate efficiently in a far future combat environment, which is what this entire argument is about in the first place.

So...as per my earlier post, I will no longer reply on this topic as it is irrelevant.



I have no "want" in this thread whatsoever. I have already addressed their points and shown that they are based on somewhat erroneous misreadings or inferences from the available evidence.

I'm noticing a pattern with this you declaring victory prematurely nonsense.





And once again, the point was never that the Eldar are infallible or invulnerable. You seem to be operating under a misconception that just because the Eldar eventually take some losses they are suddenly unsuccessful.

Are you even paying attention to the argument?

You said that the Leman Russ was NOT A DIRECT THREAT to the Grav Tank. I proved it was. Therefore...you are kind of massively wrong.

Are you awake?


The only reason we are arguing is because you are still putting your fingers in your ears despite quote evidence piling up to disprove your point. The Imperium does expend forces in huge numbers and it does manage to advance or hold territory. The logistical aspects of the Leman Russ for the Imperium at least serves to counter balance its inferiority on the field against those enemies that can outmatch it in quality. Once again if all this above posturing is just so you can save face when you concede, then save yourself the time.

Okay, so you are going to retread points I have already easily dismissed?

Gotcha.




You are again attempting to derail the discussion. Its long term strategic reliability has been an issue from the very beginning and is one of the most relevant aspects of the discussion.

No I am not. You forgot that I already dismissed your silly point earlier. Try harder next time. I am getting bored with you, and I am losing my patience for your ad hominem nonsense.

So, next post, actually argue against the main point, and come up with something besides nonsense I have already dismissed via well argued historical examples, or I am gone. You are a thoroughly unpleasant person, and we are not having a dialogue anymore, you are simply trying to argue that your penis is larger than mine.

Joe Kutz
17-08-2008, 11:42
Yeah...anywho, some interesting info for those who are interested in an IG conflict against a prepared Tau army (the initial over run in the first contact...err...second contact, caught them with their pants down).

Forge World's Imperial Armor III: The Taros Campaign. Good book, and the fluff section is laid out a lot like modern historical studies of WWII battles (no comparison to WWII tech mind you, that is just the way it reads). Unlike a lot of fluff which is written from the perspective of one of the participants - it remains neutral as a 3rd party observer. Anywho, the summary section will be found below. In addition to what is called out in this section, there were also 3 companies of Space Marines fighting alongside the IG. They suffered heavy casualties as well during the fighting (the incident which resulted in the Taros Campaign being launched saw the deaths of over half a SM company).

The war on Taros had cost the Imperial Guard in excess of five complete regiments...[skipping section that calls out which units were damaged and how badly]...Legio Ignatum lost one of its four Warhound Titans.

For the Imperium the death toll was large, and precise figures are not known. It was estimated at 10,000 killed in action and fifteen thousand wounded. As many as twenty thousand may have been captured by the Tau. Approximately 350 tanks had been lost, over seven hundred Chimeras and two hundred artillery pieces. Aircraft losses totalled 68 out of 78.

[skipping section on Fleet combat]

It was estimated that Shas'o R'myr commanded a Tau Coalition consisting of at least 100 Hunter Cadres, a grand total of between 8 and 9 thousand Fire Warriors and maybe as many as 5000 Kroot allies. Added to this were in excess of 8,000 human traitors who fought in the Tau cause. Actual Tau numbers and losses remain unknown, but must have also numbered in the thousands...

So, the Empire goes in to put down a Tau rebellion. They use 10 full regiments, a detachment of Titans, 3 companies of SM, several squadrons from the Imperial Navy for Air Support and a handful of assassins. Over 80,000 men plus all the arms and armor that they could need (they wanted to make an example out of this world for the Tau since they had defeated one company of SM already and forced them to retreat).

The defending force was around 22,000 Tau, Kroot and human miners from the planet (who likely knew that if the Tau lost...the Empire would kill them due to the taint of alien contact - so why not at least try to fight).

This wasn't a single combat, it was a long campaign - and the Tau managed to defeat a force which was around 4 times stronger than they were (even more so if you consider the capabilities of the miners in combat...or lack there of). Maybe at 5 to 1 or 6 to 1 odds the IG would do better. Unfortunately though, it is unlikely that they will ever be able to catch the Tau off guard like they did the very first time they came in to kick some cloven hoof butt.

Good read though, and it will give you significant insight into the tactics of both the Tau and the IG (there were several flavors of guard involved too) as well as combined forces attacks of the Empire (IG, SM and Titan Legions).

In terms of other IG victories, more often than not - they fight equivalent armies. Even orks aren't that far off from the IG in terms of tech and equipment. When they mix it up with armies like the Tau or Eldar - it doesn't normally end well for them.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 11:44
I don't know which point you think it is "evidence" against, but as I have already said, I believe that the Imperium has tremendous losses quite frequently, just that these losses aren't the equivalent of what would actually be the case with something like the technological difference we are discussing.


Your point was arguing the Imperium doesn't take huge losses of that scale as it would not be credible. The evidence of an Imperial armored column being wiped out shows the Imperium does take such losses.






"No matter how functional or mass-production worthy the Leman Russ is, and no matter how easily it is supplied in the field, if it is completely inefficient in combat, to the extent that tens if not hundreds of Russes are lost for every enemy tank destroyed (as I have argued via history that any tank of comparable statistics would be) then there is little reason to continue to use it. And if they DID continue to use it, they would lose. Simple as that. We know the Imperial Guard does not usually lose, therefore I find this all very unconvincing."

The very helpful Joe Kutz posted a point of direct comparison - with the Imperial Guard versus the Eldar in a tank battle, wherein the losses were only on the order of 3 or 4 to one for the Imperial Guard, whereas, say, during Desert Storm, the losses were in the Hundreds and Thousands to None for the Iraqis in direct tank combat.



Your failing is your consistent assumption that the Leman Russ is a direct carbon copy of a 1930's tank. The point from the beginning is that the Leman Russ is inferior in many ways, not that it is a 1930's tank in every form or manner.



What? I never even mentioned Tyrok Fields. You must be thinking of someone else Iracundus.


Nevermind, that was legio's point I disproved with Tyrok quote.




What you have failed to prove to me is what relevance this has to whether or not it is credible that a 1930's era tank would operate efficiently in a far future combat environment, which is what this entire argument is about in the first place.

Except I am not trying to do any such thing as the Leman Russ is not a 1930's tank. It is a tank with some characteristics comparable to it but superior to modern tanks in some other aspects. These other aspects are what would make it viable.



You said that the Leman Russ was NOT A DIRECT THREAT to the Grav Tank. I proved it was. Therefore...you are kind of massively wrong.

I didn't say that. My points from the beginning were that the Leman Russ is not automatically superior in every way to modern tanks just because it is from the future as some of its performance characteristics are subpar even today. However despite these shortcomings, other aspects of the Leman Russ make it a viable vehicle in the paradigm of the 40K millenium, even if that is by virtue of its number and ease of maintenance.




So, next post, actually argue against the main point, and come up with something besides nonsense I have already dismissed via well argued historical examples, or I am gone. You are a thoroughly unpleasant person, and we are not having a dialogue anymore, you are simply trying to argue that your penis is larger than mine.

You've been posturing about conceding for 3 posts now just like a little kid "I'm going....no really I am....if you don't pay attention to me I really will go". If you're giving up and conceding just do it and quit with the petty posturing and attention seeking.





A Lasgun or a Flak Armour may share some similarities with our 21th century gear, yet they are much more efficient: the RT states that Imperial Assault rifles, despite being much more advanced than ours (they have caseless ammunitions, are lighter and more reliable), are scarcly used by the Imperial Guard as they are often considered as unefficient and outdated. Imperial Guards despise Machine Guns and Autoguns, and call them "Cultist weapons".

Yet the same IG and PDF manufacture and use these autoguns and heavy stubbers on their tanks and even issue them to some regiments. Their strength and peformance are roughly comparable as outlined in 2nd ed. Wargear book. I said roughly, not identical.



The name autogun is a general term covering conventional projectile weapons (ie, they fire a bullet), and whilst not as common amongst Imperial Guard regiments as lasguns, autoguns are issued in substantial numbers to some regiments...As a weapon, the autogun is comparable in effectiveness to a lasgun but lacks some of the lasgun's versatility and reliability. Autoguns are prone to jamming, especially in dusty and muddy conditions, where intricate moving parts can quickly become fouled. A good maintenance routine is necessary for troops armed with autoguns. In general, autoguns and their ammunition are also heavier than lasguns and their power cells. -IA5, p. 43

The above source shows autoguns to be inferior in some logistical details such as maintenance and weight, however their stopping power is not commented on as being inferior.

As I stated before however, the point is not about the Imperium always being inferior just as it is not about the Imperium always being superior. The Imperium is superior to modern technology in its durability and ease of maintenance. There are no modern weapons comparable in long term reliability to what the Imperium's lasguns are capable of. However the Imperium is also a regime and an era where some human populations have literally gone back to the Stone Age or have survived with only some scraps of higher technology. Just because the Imperium may outperform the 20th/21st century in some areas doesn't mean it does so across all parameters.



Mines are the Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy, Necromunda, and the Munitiorum Manual.

Vast swathes of Rogue Trader have been rendered obsolete and have since been superceded. It is hardly a reliable source for comparison to the current 40K era. The Munitorum Manual as an in-character souce is inherently suspect in its reliability. The Necromunda source just backs up what I posted above about the relative reliability of the lasgun relative to projectile firing versions.

Since this thread started I have been posting from WD, 13th Black Crusade, IA1, IA2, IA3, IA5.



Anyway, the fluff has never portrayed the Leman Russ as an unefficient Tank, even when it wasn't written from an Imperial point of view.

The Imperial Leman Russ is listed as massing 60 tons yet it is only capable of 35kph on road and 21 kph off road. By any measure that is an inefficient engine if one looks at mobility. An M1's combat weight is close to 60 tons yet it can manage almost double the on road speed.

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 11:45
From what I have seen most people dismiss the Taros book as a Tau fanboy wet dream sort of thing. I've never read it so I can't comment, but I always like to see the Imperium get bashed around a little.

I just don't like to see it at the hands of those little blue Tau buggers. I have a pathological hatred for them.

I am cheering for the Orks in the War of Dakka. :p

DarkMatter2
17-08-2008, 11:55
Your failing is your consistent assumption that the Leman Russ is a direct carbon copy of a 1930's tank. The point from the beginning is that the Leman Russ is inferior in many ways, not that it is a 1930's tank in every form or manner.

And as I have said before, in combat, it WOULD basically be a carbon copy of a 1930's tank.


I didn't say that. My points from the beginning were that the Leman Russ is not automatically superior in every way to modern tanks just because it is from the future as some of its performance characteristics are subpar even today.

And my point was that I find it so completely unbelievable that a tank with performance characteristics like that would even be competitive to the extent that it is in the 40k universe that I prefer to simply not even try to compare between this fictional universe and real life, because it makes my head hurt via overflowing stupidity.

You are right in the sense that it IS canon, but it is nonsensical and silly canon that reflects more on the lack of knowledge of GW than it does on the actual 40k universe.

I understand your viewpoint, hopefully you understand mine. I see no need to continue to argue the point, as we aren't going to get anywhere, and neither of us are convinced, so lets just call it a day.

Iracundus
17-08-2008, 12:06
Except the Leman Russ has a projectile cannon that isn't equivalent to a 1930's tank. The differing shells it is described as being capable of firing in IA range from high explosive to APFSDS rounds, which 1930's tanks most definitely did not. We don't know what form the high explosives take or how they are comparable to a modern high explosive round either. The Leman Russ also has a lascannon. Both of those weapons mean that if/when the Leman Russ does score a hit, it can hurt a lot. They may be slow and they may be vulnerable but they can hit hard and there are lots of them.

However the manner in which the Tau fought on Taros is the form of fast moving armored warfare the Imperium is not good at when its tanks crawl along at a miserable 21 kph off road. The Tau had "thin" armor but when this allows them to hit Imperial tanks and then disengage to hit another section of the line when Imperial reinforcements arrive, it becomes a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of mobility. The Tau tanks don't need the heavy armor to stand up in a straight fight because that is not what they are meant to do, and a similar parallel holds for the Eldar just more so.

Badger[Fr]
17-08-2008, 13:22
Yet the same IG and PDF manufacture and use these autoguns and heavy stubbers on their tanks and even issue them to some regiments.
Very few regiments actually use Autoguns and Heavy Stubbers, as most of them favours Lasguns and Heavy Bolters over conventional Firearms, which are arguably much more efficient.


The Imperial Leman Russ is listed as massing 60 tons yet it is only capable of 35kph on road and 21 kph off road. By any measure that is an inefficient engine if one looks at mobility. An M1's combat weight is close to 60 tons yet it can manage almost double the on road speed.
This is true, but irrelevant to the IG's combat doctrine, which favours firepower and armour over manoeuvrability. The Leman Russ is meant to be tough, reliable, and heavily armed. And it achieves all its stated goals. It is a well designed vehicle, perfectly suited for its role on the battlefield. The Imperium inability to deal with the Tau and the Eldars is more a moral and intellectual failure than a technological one. Imperial technology is definitely better than our in almost every aspect, but the way the Imperium deals with it is irrational, as most citizens favour tradition and religious beliefs over sheer efficiency.

Anyway, the whole Leman Russ design is nothing but a rip-off of the old WWII French Char B1. The WWII French army, despite its technological level, was eventually beaten by the Werhmacht, as they favoured heavy armour and firepower over manoeuvrability. That's why the whole IG WW1 combat doctrines doesn't make sense at all IMHO, but who cares? Rule of cool always wins.

Joe Kutz
17-08-2008, 18:28
From what I have seen most people dismiss the Taros book as a Tau fanboy wet dream sort of thing. I've never read it so I can't comment, but I always like to see the Imperium get bashed around a little.

That may be - might not though. I have always ranked GWs fluff in terms of importance like this:

GW Codex and Rulebooks
Specialist Games Rulebooks
Forgeworld Armour Books and Rule Books
Black Library Background Books
Black Library Fiction


Of course then you have a complex system of what source is the most recent and all that. You also have the source within the book itself. Fluff written as reports tend to have more accurate information than fluff written as fiction or first person accounts.

I have noticed that there is a considerable difference between the various BL books depending on the author - and most of them are written to make the subject at hand the be all - end all of the 40K universe. In most cases the GW and FW books are in better agreement with each other than BL books (which often contradict themselves within the cover of the same book).
__________________

More to the point about the Taros campaign being written by a Tau fanboy - the 5th edition rule book seems to concur with the Taros campaigns assertions. A Tau expeditionary army subdued 7 regiments on the world of Cytheria. That would be in the 60 to 70 thousand man area and it included 2 armored regiments. It was also an important Adeptus Mechanicus research planet - so I am sure they would have had some of their own forces present.

Anywho - they sent in a green commander with his various cadres...and they pretty well whipped the IGs butt.

There is also a bit about the strategy of the IG in their section:

The cruel truth is that manpower is the cheapest of the Imperium's myriad currencies. Commanders of the Guard spend the lives of their men in the search for victory as carelessly as other armies expend ammunition. It is through this, the inexorable and overwhelming application of power onto a single strategic point, the the Imperial Guard wins its bloody victories. Though ponderous, it can field an unending tide of infantry, supported by armoured vehicles and artillery. It is a strategy of attrition, and few foes can endure its mighty onset.

Firaxin
18-08-2008, 02:18
That argument was very tiresome to wade through. I'm not even sure what side I'm on because of all the inanity.

One thing though, about the Russ being the equivalent of an 'interwar' tank in combat terms.

It's not. IIRC, the autocannon is supposed to be the equivalent of the Abram's main battle cannon. Now, the Leman Russ's battle cannon may be somewhat less accurate. But I think the fact that it has nearly twice the range of our modern tanks, and that it has a much larger burst radius (we'll say High Explosive rounds are equivalent to the conqueror's cannon, which is only a small blast), and greater strength and greater armor penetration speaks for itself. Don't forget that the strength characteristic is non-linear, too.

On top of that, you've got two heavy bolters and a lascannon. Maybe a heavy stubber too. Combined, the leman russ's offensive capabilities far outstrip our modern tanks, let alone a 1930's era tank.

I'm sure it goes faster than an interwar tank too, and has no problems getting to battle because its engine can run off grass etc. The defensive properties of 40k's unreal armor should speak for itself in that department.

An Abrams is comparative to a space marine predator destructor minus the heavy bolters, plus a heavy stubber. IMHO. Now ask yourself whether you'd rather have one predator destructor or 1,000 leman russes, especially if we're disregarding the silly 5th ed. defensive weapons rule.

The Leman Russ is nothing to be trifled with.

That however does not mean it is better than the super-advanced psycho-reactive wraithbone armored eldar skimmers. Which is why attrition works.

DarkMatter2
18-08-2008, 04:05
Essentially Firaxin, you have presented complete speculation. Your entire posts boils down to "No its not."

I see very little to validate any of what you said.

Despite the Russ' characteristics being more or less (in terms of armor, speed, profile) equivalent to a pre-WWII tank, it is described as incredibly rugged? and as having immense firepower? within nearly every source.

Of course, the Russ possesses armaments on its sponsons (which is actually VERY old fashioned and reminiscent again of interwar tanks) and a front machine gun. I see it as more important that these are primitive weapon systems compared to say the modern Abrams' three coaxial mounted machine guns which are capable of a wider range of fire without actually having to turn the tank around to fire.

Granted, I would rather the entire Russ thing make some kind of sense in universe - but it has to be based off of better than rumors and wishful thinking.

Where do any of these ideas about the Autocannon being equal to the main cannon of an Abrams come from? Or the completely contradictory to established statistics notion that the Russ goes "fast" when it in fact goes about 15 mph, compared to the Abrams' road speed of 40 mph, and off road speed of 30 mph?


A Tau expeditionary army subdued 7 regiments on the world of Cytheria. That would be in the 60 to 70 thousand man area and it included 2 armored regiments.

7 regiments is probably more in the area of 20,000-30,000 men, given that the standard size of IG regiments is usually about 3,000 men. You might be confusing a regiment with a division.

All in all, it doesn't suprise me that the Tau could conquer a planet with such a meagre garrison.

Firaxin
18-08-2008, 04:51
Actually Darkmatter, and I will cite the IG codex, page 10, for this; an imperial guard regiment, or a cadian one at least, is roughly 8,000-10,000 men strong.

But yes, I was just speculating. I have no idea if the autocannon is actually equivalent to an Abram's main gun. I know I read somewhere that it's based on modern tank guns... maybe lexicanum.com but I can't be sure and yes I know that site is not a 100% reliable source. Just speculating, is all.

But I was correct when I said It's not a 1930's tank in any way except for looks.

It is faster. At least as fast if not faster than WW2 tanks, if you look at Imperial Armor. It may not be as fast as the abrams, but touting that fact when we say its faster than the 1930s tanks doesn't help your argument that its only as good as an interwar tank in battle.

It's better armored. The King Tiger during WW2 had 180mm thick armor at its thickest point. The Leman Russ has 200mm at its thickest. Even assuming the leman russ is made of the same material as the tiger (which its not, its made of spess-fantasy materials) it has superior armor than the tank which was famous for being nigh invincible against the inferior weapons of the Allied tanks.

It's better armed. Though the idea of sponson mounted weapons with limited arcs of fire may seem foolish to you, I can assure you that a pair of 1.00cal armor penetrating rocket launching machine guns and a lascannon with double or more the strength and armor penetration of aforementioned armor-piercing rockets, not to mention longer ranger and better accuracy (being a laser-based weapon) are far, far more potent than any sponson every attached to a tank in our history, let alone the measly machineguns the abrams mounts. That doesn't even include the main gun, of course.

And finally, as has been done to death, it is better for logistic reasons, though I know you don't like when that part's brought up as it apparently doesn't have any affect on the battle. Except for, ya'know, making sure the tank shows up at the right place at the right time, and doesn't quit working during a particularly long battle away from supply depots...

Joe Kutz
18-08-2008, 05:13
Everything that I have ever seen puts a regiment in the 5-10 thousand range. The IG Codex places the Cadian 8th at around 8,000. The average size of the regiments involved in the Taros campaign could be figured to be around 6,000 (30,000 killed or captured costing the IG in excess of 5 regiments). The Krieg Siege Regiments are at least 8,400 (based off from minimum known numbers - however high end speculation puts them over 12,000). Tallarn are around 10,684 per Light Infantry Regiment. Some of the more specialized regiments are smaller...the Elysian Drop Infantry are only around 3,000.

Also, the planet was reinforced with 7 regiments - not sure what the standing size of the PDF might have been...but since it wasn't stated, I do not count it in the actual comparison. However, since it does say that those 7 regiments were there to reinforce the planet it is safe to assume they were reinforcing something.

DarkMatter2
18-08-2008, 05:46
Actually Darkmatter, and I will cite the IG codex, page 10, for this; an imperial guard regiment, or a cadian one at least, is roughly 8,000-10,000 men strong.


IG Codex pg. 4

"This ties in with one of the tenets of Imperial Guard organization in later milennia, that of regimental formation. Many sources concur that the basis for regimental formations is what would fit into the interstellar ships available to the crusades - typically producing three thousand man regiments which can be carried by a single transport vessel or one of the many available classes of cruiser."

So what we have here is a statement of what is typical within the Imperium, and then trying to essentially compare that to one of the most reknowned regiments in the Imperium which has every reason to be much larger than normal.

I'll stick with the three thousand.

As for your points on the tank, I always enjoy a new perspective. I more WANT TO BE CONVINCED that the Russ makes sense in the background than to strictly argue that it doesn't.

legio mortis
18-08-2008, 05:53
I have no idea if the autocannon is actually equivalent to an Abram's main gun.m I know I read somewhere that it's based on modern tank guns... maybe lexicanum.com but I can't be sure and yes I know that site is not a 100% reliable source. Just speculating, is all.
It's in the Rogue Trader book. Sure, it's old, but we haven't been given a specific caliber or weapon size since, and since there is no one type of autocannon, it's pretty safe to assume that there are autocannons that are the equivilant of the Abrams main gun, given the weapon power of normal 40k tank cannons.

I don't think that the speed of a Leman Russ is at all singular. It's going to depend greatly on the type of engine used. A Leman Russ built on Asscrack IV by poor dirt-farmers with a steam engine isn't going to go nearly as fast as a Russ built on Bellis Prime with a plasma coil engine or some sort of nuclear reactor.

As to the other posts...wow. I leave for a day and this. It seems that my original point was lost in translation somewhere, but hey, threads evolve. I am still willing to discuss my original point.

Cavalier
18-08-2008, 06:02
There is a lot of argument here, and I know that I'm not going to change anyone's mind. Still, a few things stood out to me and I'd like to comment on them.

Certain pieces of fluff shouldn't be taken too seriously. When a tank is described as being knocked back 20 feet, we know the author of that paragraph isn't intimately familiar with the laws of physics. If the gun is powerful enough to shove the target tank backwards 20 feet, it will do the same to the tank that fired it. Likewise, 190 tons of recoil will send a tank rocketing backwards (and probably flipping through the air), on the move or not.

The Demolisher needing to be set before it fires to prevent tipping over: The Stryker combat vehicle currently in use by the US army has the same problem when it is equipped with its optional 105mm cannon. Reports indicate that it can't fire to the side without danger of tipping over.


If I were an Imperial commander, and I needed to seize an objective city, I would make use of my primary advantage: numbers. If I need to take, say, Baghdad, then I will send 100K men and 1000 tanks from the north, another group from the northeast, another from the east, another from the southeast, another group from the south, etc. I will surround the city. As Iraqi tanks do battle with one group of my tanks, I will send in another group to strike at their supply lines. When their reinforcements arrive to deal with the group sent after their supply lines, I will send another group of tanks to a nearby undefended suburb to shell it into oblivion. This is what the Imperium calls "a diversion". When they send in tanks to deal with the diversion, I will send another 1000 tanks into the region just vacated by the rescuers.

I will outnumber the enemy twenty to one. While they waste their precious time killing a few regiments, the rest of my forces will bypass them and begin the Emperor's work of killing the inhabitants of the treacherous city. I don't have to kill the Abrams, I just have to draw it out of position. If I'm fighting against Eldar, I just send more troops and more tanks than they can kill in time. A Falcon can only kill so many before I've got troops inside the city blowing up vital military targets like munitions depots and hospitals. At that point, I've won.

A Leman Russ won't win a fight against a Baneblade. Even a dozen Russ tanks won't beat a Baneblade. But only an idiot sends a dozen Russes against it. A smart commander will send two or three to keep the Baneblade busy. The rest slink by out of sight and head towards the objective.

The needs of the vehicle should also be considered. For the most part, a Russ isn't expected to fight a Falcon. 90% of Russes fight against human traitors and rebels without much anti-tank weaponry. A King Tiger tank rolling down the streets of Los Angeles in 2008 would be pretty much indestructible until you could get some modern military weaponry brought to bear. Against cops, SWAT teams, locals with firearms, etc, the King Tiger is going to be invulnerable. A Leman Russ doesn't fight Abrams tanks. It fights other Imperial technology (in which case performance specs don't really matter), and super-advanced aliens. As I said earlier, a bright lance doesn't care how much armor you have.

legio mortis
18-08-2008, 06:15
Certain pieces of fluff shouldn't be taken too seriously. When a tank is described as being knocked back 20 feet, we know the author of that paragraph isn't intimately familiar with the laws of physics. If the gun is powerful enough to shove the target tank backwards 20 feet, it will do the same to the tank that fired it.
Except that we aren't given any real description to what happens to the firing tank, other than it gets sniped seconds later by a Destroyer. We also aren't given any insight into it's inner workings, other than it's lack of relatively advanced targeting equipment.



Likewise, 190 tons of recoil will send a tank rocketing backwards (and probably flipping through the air), on the move or not.
The tanks in question are equipped with inertial dampeners. They take the recoil and, essentially, make it disappear somehow.



The Demolisher needing to be set before it fires to prevent tipping over: The Stryker combat vehicle currently in use by the US army has the same problem when it is equipped with its optional 105mm cannon. Reports indicate that it can't fire to the side without danger of tipping over.
The Stryker isn't a 70-ish ton tank.

Cavalier
18-08-2008, 06:42
Except that we aren't given any real description to what happens to the firing tank, other than it gets sniped seconds later by a Destroyer. We also aren't given any insight into it's inner workings, other than it's lack of relatively advanced targeting equipment.

Guns in real life don't knock people 10 feet backwards like they do in the movies. Because to do that, they'd knock the guy firing the gun 10 feet backwards as well.


The tanks in question are equipped with inertial dampeners. They take the recoil and, essentially, make it disappear somehow.

I haven't seen any reference for inertial dampeners on Imperial tanks. The only thing I have seen in favor of that idea is the argument that "they must exist, otherwise that 190 tons of recoil doesn't make sense". I am not convinced by that argument. If they had inertial dampeners, the Demolisher wouldn't need to sit still to fire.


The Stryker isn't a 70-ish ton tank.

No, but it isn't firing a particularly large weapon, either. You don't need to shoot a battleship gun to tip over an armored vehicle.

legio mortis
18-08-2008, 06:55
Guns in real life don't knock people 10 feet backwards like they do in the movies. Because to do that, they'd knock the guy firing the gun 10 feet backwards as well.
This isn't modern day earth. Perhaps they have some sort of recoil dampening system, if not inertial dampeners themselves.



I haven't seen any reference for inertial dampeners on Imperial tanks. The only thing I have seen in favor of that idea is the argument that "they must exist, otherwise that 190 tons of recoil doesn't make sense". I am not convinced by that argument.
The reference is there in the book. They're also explained in the Eisenhorn series.


If they had inertial dampeners, the Demolisher wouldn't need to sit still to fire.
Or the opposite could be true. Given the relative power of the Conquerer cannon, then the Demolisher cannon must be exceedingly powerful. Even with inertial dampeners, the tank needs to sit still to fire.


No, but it isn't firing a particularly large weapon, either. You don't need to shoot a battleship gun to tip over an armored vehicle.
No, but when the 70 ton vehicle in question's whole front end lifts clearly up off the ground when the gun fires suggests some serious firepower.

Joe Kutz
18-08-2008, 07:54
"This ties in with one of the tenets of Imperial Guard organization in later milennia, that of regimental formation. Many sources concur that the basis for regimental formations is what would fit into the interstellar ships available to the crusades - typically producing three thousand man regiments which can be carried by a single transport vessel or one of the many available classes of cruiser."

Yes - During the crusades, the regiment size was around 3,000 guardsmen. However, the ships in use now seem to be significantly larger than those used during the period of the great crusade and are able to move much larger units. I looked for the specific source - but wasn't able to find it...however I have seen references to transport ships which are able to carry well over 10,000 men and their equipment to war.

Considering that later on within the same book that mentions the 3,000 mark - it also mentions the 8000 mark (with the Cadian 8th) I wouldn't put much basis in the 3,000...especially considering that that number refers to the ships used during the Great Crusade and other early actions. More recent activity (both according to the IG Codex and other sources like the IA series) shows larger regiments...although it still uses the Regiment formations as was laid out during that ancient time due to the troop transports...
_________________

The issue of the 190 tons of recoil is a mute point. The recent fluff on that cannon (IA series - 2004 and more recent) describes a recoilless rocket propelled projectile. No need for interial dampers - no need to deal with fuzzy science. I had quoted the current description of the cannon previously in this thread.

Poseidal
18-08-2008, 10:31
One thing about sloped armour being better for modern tanks isn't true anymore for modern Chobham armour, according to the Wikipedia article on it.

Maybe the Russ was onto something? ;)

Firaxin
18-08-2008, 16:41
It's in the Rogue Trader book. Sure, it's old, but we haven't been given a specific caliber or weapon size since, and since there is no one type of autocannon, it's pretty safe to assume that there are autocannons that are the equivilant of the Abrams main gun, given the weapon power of normal 40k tank cannons.
Thankyou.

So yeah. I picture an abrams to be like a predator destructor minus the heavy bolters, plus a heavy stubber or two. Though the abram's armor values might actually be lower.

Again, I postulate: Would you rather have 1 so armed predator destructor, or 1,000 leman russes?


One thing about sloped armour being better for modern tanks isn't true anymore for modern Chobham armour, according to the Wikipedia article on it.

Maybe the Russ was onto something? ;)
Nice call!

TheRoadWarrior
18-08-2008, 16:54
to me, the russ looks more like a box on wheels, in a way.

legio mortis
18-08-2008, 18:20
The issue of the 190 tons of recoil is a mute point. The recent fluff on that cannon (IA series - 2004 and more recent) describes a recoilless rocket propelled projectile. No need for interial dampers - no need to deal with fuzzy science. I had quoted the current description of the cannon previously in this thread.
You quoted the fluff for the Vindicator. The demolisher cannon fluff there describes the shell has having a small propellant charge. The description in IAvol1 describes it as a conventionally fired shell with a very large charge. It's fairly obvious that, with these quotes, there seem to be different types of Demolisher shells.

MarinesInSpace
18-08-2008, 20:13
*sigh* I am going to return to my threads topic...Poor Guardsmen. I try and bring some words of sympathy to these oft-ignored or underrated heros and everyone proceeds to ignore them in order to talk about tanks.

I should have known better than to compare 40k with modern tech, I should be shot so bring on the commissar.

Firaxin
18-08-2008, 20:21
*BANG!*

...seriously though, guardsmen are under rated. Inquisitor Eisenhorn is intimidated by kasrkin stormtroopers more than he is of other inquisitors, IIRC. That should say something.

AllisterCaine
19-08-2008, 07:17
I'm really not so sure that the IG infantry are better equipt than some of the best infantry around today, especially if you look ahead just 5 years. Guns that shoot around corners, smart ammunition that tracks the target for you, fire and forget anti tank weapons, thermal/night vision sights (typical guard appear to have only iron sights), individual HUDs for each soldier.




Yeah, but smart weapons, high tech gear and advanced training wont mean much when the enemy is wearing body armor that can stop direct hits from a .50 cal and carries energy rifles that can melt through an inch of steel.

ChaosTicket
19-08-2008, 14:06
Yeah, but smart weapons, high tech gear and advanced training wont mean much when the enemy is wearing body armor that can stop direct hits from a .50 cal and carries energy rifles that can melt through an inch of steel.

Prefectly stated. All the weapons and equipment now miss a pretty simple aspect, Armor. No one has much body armor, and body armor technology has not advanced much.

In 40k, the Imperial Guard use various forms of Flak Armor as their body armor. They could easily have better protection if they had thicker amounts and greater coverage. Weight could be a problem, but since Carapace Armor is commonly servo-assisted anyway it is not a problem.

Imperial Guard have low quality equipment as stated because of it's incredible versatility, but it's also low quality. Better equipment is pretty simple, like Hellguns are Lasguns that direct more power each time they are fired, and carapace armor in double thickness and coverage flak armor.

The Harakoni Warhawks are one of my Favorite Regiments, as they are a perfect example of higher quality Guardsmen. They have heavy armor, various means of deploying tactically, and have plenty of heavy and special weapons.

I wonder what would happen if their was a general upgrade for Imperial Guard equipment? If Elite Guardsmen had Carapace Armor and Hellguns, and Storm Troopers had Boltguns I think the Guard would seem less as a swarm army.

Tau are a good example of what the Imperial Guard could be. They have all weapons and armor that the Guard wish they had, but lack the numbers to really use it.

MarinesInSpace
21-08-2008, 02:49
yeah but guard hit harder and hit faster in Close combat. wow, never thought I would say that about guard.

Against tau that is.

boommaster3
21-08-2008, 03:50
against anyone
ive had a guard commander beat down a battle leader in terminator armor in one round so they can hold there own in close combat thats for sure

Duckdude
21-08-2008, 05:25
Actually, when you compare a guardsmen to an ork you see that guardsmen really can hold their own in a fight.

They got the same strenght as an ork (in game terms anyways) and better initiative. And if you take hardened fighters for them, they got the same ws to.
And a guardmen is only 6 pts (7 and 1/2 with hardened fighters) while an ork is 8pts :p

ChaosTicket
21-08-2008, 14:26
Hmm, well orks are fearless, have str 4, 3 attack leaders, every ork has Furious assault, and allmost all ork weapons are Assault.

The Average ork is better than a guardsmen at range because of their T4.

I do want to see some way to increase basic units. Imperial Guard have one of the worst Basic statlines and equipment. Tau are what you would get if Guardsmen had Carapace armor, boltguns, and BS4, but tau come in such small numbers that their main advantage in flexible deployment(as in deep strike, infiltrate, and transports) is downsided by easy to kill units with.

Imperial Guard have numbers, but such low equipment that IN-Game, they are basically centered around whatever heavy and special weapons the squad has.

In the 40k universe, that's not as much a problem as you see a platoon of guardsmen for every enemy "squad". So you would see half a dozen heavy bolters starring down as Fire Warriors as they get into position to use their pulse rifles.

DarkMatter2
21-08-2008, 20:51
Considering that later on within the same book that mentions the 3,000 mark - it also mentions the 8000 mark (with the Cadian 8th) I wouldn't put much basis in the 3,000...especially considering that that number refers to the ships used during the Great Crusade and other early actions. More recent activity (both according to the IG Codex and other sources like the IA series) shows larger regiments...although it still uses the Regiment formations as was laid out during that ancient time due to the troop transports...


The Epic Rulebook states that the average IG regiment size is between 2-6,000 men.

Marneus Calgar
22-08-2008, 03:38
against anyone
ive had a guard commander beat down a battle leader in terminator armor in one round so they can hold there own in close combat thats for sure

A fluke does not mean that Guardsmen can hold their own in close combat. On a repeated senario, that result would have more than likely ended up as a dead guardsmen commander.


Actually, when you compare a guardsmen to an ork you see that guardsmen really can hold their own in a fight.

They got the same strenght as an ork (in game terms anyways) and better initiative. And if you take hardened fighters for them, they got the same ws to.
And a guardmen is only 6 pts (7 and 1/2 with hardened fighters) while an ork is 8pts

An ork was better in close combat than a guardsmen in their previous codex and even more so in the current one. An ork had two base attacks with Waaagh!(striking at I4), with a choppa this would make four attacks. Even though the ork has the same strength as a guardsmen, they have a higher toughness. They also have a better WS without doctrines and were 8 points each. In the current codex, they received furious charge, making them strength 4 on a charge and strike at the same time. The difference is that they actually DROPPED two points, making them six points(the same as a guardsmen). The ork is clearly superior in close combat.