PDA

View Full Version : Conquering a planet (realistically)



Aun'aart'al
28-11-2013, 05:00
Hey guys,

I was sitting here considering the Gaunt's Ghosts series (great series if you haven't read it) and no matter how I tried to justify GW's view on this, I cannot for the life of me see how 5-10 regiments of Imperial Guard would be able to conquer an entire Forge World. I simply cannot.

So I figured I would make the target smaller, say.. a civilized world. Alright, Earth today would be considered a civilized world (in Imperial classification only :rolleyes: ). So, 7.195 billion people, with a total number of global infantry of 7.7 million from at least 182 nations. So let's assume the Imperium sent in 10 Death Korp Siege Armies, so each army comprised of 4 Siege Regiments, 2 Assault Corps comprised of armour, siege and artillery regiments, and 2 Artillery Corps of 3 siege artillery regiments, comprised of 10 independent artillery companies and 4 heavy mortar companies. Suffice it to say they would have a lot of hardware. Using NATO figures, that would be roughly 145000 soldiers, 17 tanks, 488 guns and 32 heavy guns. Taking just China and India's available conscripts (purely those "fit" for service) we get a combined 1,108,160,147 fit for conscription if such a situation warranted it, which would go towards the already combined count of 6,552,821 (reserve personnel included).

So just with two nations, I have already come up with more than a billion soldiers

So my question now is, what sort of realistic numbers would be required to conquer a civilized world with a population of 7.195 billion people that has access to some 17,000 nuclear warheads, 1376 warships, and 5858 aircraft (taken from just the top 10 largest air forces). You cannot bombard the planet from space, you must send in troops however you have not been ordered to keep the infrastructure entirely intact. No Space Marines are available, no assassins are available. Purely a Guard operation, but you can use a mix of different regiments (catachan, krieg, cadian..).

I am curious to see what others think of this, personally I would imagine somewhere in the area of at least 15-20 million infantry, supported by no less than 50000 leman russ tanks, and 25000 siege guns, although possibly with another 5-10 million soldiers in reserve

Thoughts?

Ssilmath
28-11-2013, 05:20
Look to history to guide you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa Over 9 Million Personnel, almost 7 Million on the front lines, up to 30,000 tanks total

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk Largest tank battle in history, with almost a Million casualties

Now, consider the overall lethality, and the invading force would need massive numbers. Other factors to consider is that the US military has almost a million Gulf War veterans to call upon, 2 million Active Duty and Reserve and 120 Million able bodied draft applicants and another 20 million more potentials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_armed_forces. That doesn't even consider Europe, China, India, Russia or the huge number of hardened fighters in the Middle East. As long as Earth has sufficient time to train and arm, assuming close parity in equipment and the attackers disadvantage...You can probably see where the numbers are going here.

Hawkkf
28-11-2013, 06:41
There are a few things I adjust in my mind whenever I look at the numbers of soldiers of any type that GW puts out. The first thing I do is add a 0 at the end of every troop count. A regiment of 3,000 becomes 30,000, 5-10 regiments becomes 50-100, etc. The second thing to consider are that Imperial Guard are normally selected from the top 10% of a world's PDF which are then further trained and equipped. While a guardsman might seem weak compared to a space marine he has better training, more combat experience, and access to more specialist/heavy equipment than the PDF grade soldiers they would normally be facing on a rebellious planet. After that you have to recall most planets arent as widespread as our modern civilization so the number of places that need to be taken are quite less than we have. Also, don't discount the imperial navy. Even if they arent allowed to do general orbital bombardment, they have tons of aircraft and can achieve air superiority quickly. This gives the Imperial forces a huge advantage.

Lets take an invasion of present day earth by Imperial forces. First upon achieving orbit they would knock out our satelites and bombard military installations from space. Any military facilities can be rebuilt after conquest and they are generally far enough from valued objectives that they are safe to bombard. Then while Imperial Navy strike craft enter orbit to achieve air superiority while Storm Troopers are dropped in to secure/eliminate the nuclear threat. Once that is complete the bulk of the guard forces land and take major strong points. New York, LA, Washington DC, London, Paris, Beijing, Moscow, and a few others would be the first ones targetted. If the Imperium wins those battlefields and has handicapped communications to hinder resistance it wouldnt take much more to pacify the planet. Once the leadership and military presence of the US, China, and other major powers are eliminated most other governments would capitulate. Specially when informed that there is a galaxy of horrors out there that make the Imperial invasion look like tea time and that the Imperium is human based and you are being welcomed back into the waiting arms of the human empire where there is safety and insert your imperial propaganda here. Sure there will be resistance, but that is the problem for the new Imperial Givernor to sort out before his first tithe is due. It is my belief that most imperial invasions of human worlds only seek pacification and leave total conquest for the new 'official' government they leave in thier wake.

So how many invading soldiers would it take if each soldier was the relative equivalent to a navy seal/ranger/special forces, etc and had a fleet orbiting with resources and intel? They only have to take a limited number of locations to achieve 'victory'. I would think not much if you add the zeroes like I said earlier.

Oh and for alien worlds the xenophobia normally permits cleansing the planets by orbital bombardment so less ground forces are needed. For serious things like retaking a planet from xenos, space marines are often called in as guard just cant get the numbers needed to achieve victory without using orbital bombardments. Infantry win fire fights, ,Tanks win battles, Artillery wins wars, Space ships win planets.

agurus1
28-11-2013, 06:49
Truly the numbers required would be enormous, but also consider that in the Imperium - almost nothing is regimented (lol) about the Guard. A "regiment" founded on two different worlds might not only have different customs, but different tech levels, and even be of different sizes numerically.

The exact numbers escape me, but consider the idea that the ratio of attackers to defenders should be 10 or 20 to 1 in order to take a defended position. Now consider that essentially the planet earth is a defended position. In the event of such a conflict, consider the fact that most of the 7.195 billion people would be conscripted to fight or contribute somehow to the war effort regardless of age or gender merely because of the sheer nature of the war (literally everything about the current way of life for everyone around the globe is at stake). So if only half of the population of the world became frontline soldiers thats still ~3 billion under arms. so.... x10 would be 30 billion to invade if we think that IG are = to current military tech?

However remember that Guard are NOT your average Joe soldier. They are the BEST of the PDF's that were raised to join the Imperial Guard and have then been literally either training or fighting for all of their lives since. They are indoctrinated, religious zealots, armed and trained by a galaxy spanning superpower. It would be fair to say that their average soldier would be worth several of our conscripts, and they are each probably more equivalent to say US Marines than say Chinese Reservist.

Say I'm an Imperial Guard Lord Commander, and have been tasked by my superior to take by army group and take this planet in the name of the Emperor. Say I only have 3 billion soldiers, and similar ratio of tanks, aircraft, and artillery as this planet (Earth) has? How would I go about conquering it?

1) Shock and Awe - To borrow a term ;) seek to impress the natives with a display of strength. Take over a satellite and broadcast messages to the populace, looping images of the imperium at war, the fleet in anchor above the world, troops mustering ready to invade. Come from the other angle, spread the message of faith in the God Emperor. Broadcast how the Imperium will be good for the people of Earth. Failing that, pick a place important but relatively minor to the industry of the world (Hollywood, Eiffel Tower, Great Wall of China... ect...) and bombard it from orbit. Leave a hole in the ground (maybe broadcast the destruction of the area ahead of time to minimize civilian casualties). Seek to impress the population and leaders with the futility of resisting, or try to remove the need to resist at all (better life, ect...) During this time, open up individual lines of communication to different countries leadership, seeking to divide Earths forces, offer things to countries that help you if there is an outbreak of hostilities, try and get a foothold.

2) Failing that, and assuming that war is the only way. Destroy command and control centers. Bombard capitols and defense nerve centers from orbit (military bases -especially airbases, capitol buildings, centers of government, military - Washington DC, Pentagon, Berlin, Bejing, Moscow, London, ect....) Attempt to decentralize any military response. Storm Trooper raids of key sites (nuke silos, command and control centers unable to be knocked out from orbit, maybe even capture of high ranking officials). Imperial Navy air raids against targets that a orbital strike is either too destructive or inaccurate to risk.

3) Mass Landing of Troops (be sure to broadcast world wide) outside of strategically important centers of industry, or population centers. Divide forces into groups large enough to be effective at controlling their sectors but small enough to not be a huge loss if there are people around with nuclear codes still and the will to use it and possible wipe out some of their own at the same time. Begin indoctrination of local populace. Dig in - fortress building, void shielding barracks ect... (nothing as demoralizing to remaining military to use a nuke on your barracks only for it to be left alone and the surrounding miles of civilians have been wiped out for no gain in return).

4) Mopping Up: search and destroy remaining resistance. Use any allies you won from phase 1 or through indoctrination in phase 3 in this. Begin establishing an Adeptus Terra presence on the world (Arbites, Administratum, Astronomica, Telepathica, ect...)

I think that w/o the nitty gritty day to day grind thats about how it would pan out.

IronWithinIronWithout
28-11-2013, 07:17
I just had this discussion with my wife, as did the above poster apparently. Control the media and the Capitol, control the world. If China takes over America, guess what, I'm Chinese now.

Rowenstin
28-11-2013, 07:29
Hey guys,

I was sitting here considering the Gaunt's Ghosts series (great series if you haven't read it) and no matter how I tried to justify GW's view on this, I cannot for the life of me see how 5-10 regiments of Imperial Guard would be able to conquer an entire Forge World. I simply cannot.

Thoughts?

It's obvious that conquering territory through purely land campaings (we're talking about not mass surrender, nuclear bombardment etc) would take huge numbers and those huge numbers should be relatively common through the galaxy; your average Waaagh should have orks at the very least least in the billions or tens of billions; a planet's PDF (we're talking about a militarized society here) should also be sporting 9 figure numbers or so, not the 20 thousand we've seen sometimes, and so on. I'm not sure GW fluff writers aren't aware of this though, but just that those numbers are difficult to reconcile with the scale of regular 40k battles or the actions of individuals, not to mention the size of your regular space marine strike force. In a conflict that involves at least hundered of thousands, a force of three companies or so is just a glorified commando team, and the actions of IG badass commander Whatever seems lost like a drop in the ocean.

Hal'jin
28-11-2013, 07:44
Keep in mind that, most often, the invading Imperial force will have achieved orbital superiority, meaning they can just bombard whatever the hell they want space, without any retaliation whatsoever. You can then just send troops to secure the most important areas (such as command centers/ important population hubs/ industrial complexes/ resource sources). Once you have those the population will most likely surrender and any possible resistance won't do much - as soon as they win they will be vaporized by a lance battery in orbit. You can also just start bombing cities - how long do you think they will keep up the fight if each battle costs them billions of lives?

While GW does seem to have problems with giving good number estimates, keep in mind that these campaigns aren't mostly about taking every square inch of land on the planet - just the important bits. It only gets tricky when we talk about enemies that don't really have important bits - such as Orks or Nids.

lolplates
28-11-2013, 09:22
From our own history, invading and occupying any nation/area is easier said then done-one reason, the locals can get kind of miffed at being conquered. I guess invading and 'winning' is the quick and easy part. Say a Hiveworld is rediscovered and is forcibly readmitted to the empire-it would take a very long time to get the place stable and route out all resistance.

A place like Earth, you would have to decide to either invade then manage the locals somehow or wipe the current inhabitants out.

My guess would be the best way would be to use biowarfare to wipe out the population and then recolonise the planet.

Thrax
28-11-2013, 09:25
I think Ssilmath is on the right track here and others are vastly overestimating the Guards' capability in pacifying an Earth-like society. Real world comparisons are always difficult because so much of GW's "science" is questionable - the Leman Russ for example is really a rolling piece of garbage compared to any modern main battle tank, but let's say it's at least similar for comparison purposes.

Take the Russian victory in the battle for Berlin during WWII as an example - a highly motivated, well-equipped force attacking a single major enemy city ALREADY bombed to rubble and the country's infrastructure ALREADY in ruins. Though the Russians may have been overly aggressive in securing the victory, even a more measured approach still would have inflicted huge casualties on the attackers. So people think a few regiments are up to the task to take a single major city, much less a 100 of them? Or an entire planet??? Guess again.

KingDeath
28-11-2013, 09:32
"Realisticaly" the best way to actualy conquer a defended world with the Imperium's level of technology might be trough orbital supremacy. Erradicate a city or two, show the population that further ressistance is futile and wait for their surrender. Everything else will either become genocide or a logistical nightmare.

Hal'jin
28-11-2013, 09:33
But two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were enough for them to surrender unconditionally. An Imperial fleet has thousand times the firepower.

Polaria
28-11-2013, 09:54
So people think a few regiments are up to the task to take a single major city, much less a 100 of them? Or an entire planet??? Guess again.

Comparing "warfare by attrition" -type of combat doctrine used in WW I and WW II with anything before or after doesn't really get you far. In Iraq 2003 US took Baghdad with two brigades. When you translate that to actual numbers of fighting troops (you have to remember that way more than half of a US "combat" brigade is actually logistics, maintenance and other rear-echelong troops) its far less men than many Imperial Guard regiments have. Actually some WW II battalions had more fighting men in them...

Commotionpotion
28-11-2013, 11:04
It really would depend on the nature of the planet and its inhabitants.

If we're talking about a world like 21st Century Earth - and I mean JUST like 21st Century Earth - then it would not be made a target for military conquest unless absolutely necessary, because by modern Imperial standards it would be a jewel of purity!

The Administratum would classify it as a human enclave of 'infidels' rather than 'heretics' - a place beyond the Emperor's light, but not displaying highly questionable behaviours like Chaos worship or trafficking with aliens. But at the same time, it would be so much more than that - a tiny, preserved slice of pre-Heresy, pre-Age of Strife, hell even pre-Dark Age civilization. It contains lots of highly valuable technology and other knowledge possibly lost to the wider Imperium, of great interest to the Adeptus Mechanicus; the incidence of emergent psykers and genetic corruption of all kinds is small to non-existent (which would be a great interest to the Inquisition and the various Adeptus branches - how have they managed to remain so uncorrupted?)

Lots of the world's population display high levels of religious piety, and many of their faiths tally so closely with the Ecclesiarchy's core teachings as to be indistinguishable, and those that are different could easily be nudged slightly to make them conform (just inserting the Emperor as a being of which their faith's 'creator' deities are reflections - time-consuming but straightforward work for a corps of savvy Cardinals Astral and Confessors acting as 'advisors'). And of the many that have no faith - what could be better 'proof' of a 'great creator' of another highly advanced but still recognisably human civilization that actually made it into space?

At the same time, the population of said world would be in curiosity and awe of the newcomers - it having been a cherished dream of many over the years to be a part of something 'greater', to know that weren't alone - and now that 'dream' has come true, and even better, its messengers are other human beings. I mean, practical space travel! Other worlds! (because Imperial propaganda would no doubt be very effective in hiding the more unpleasant aspects of life in such a war-ravaged galaxy - at least until it was too late ;))

I'd say that the primary Imperial assault upon such a world would be diplomatic in nature; it soldiers would be priests, politicians, Inquisitors, Rogue Traders and nobles, not armies of tanks, psychotic Space Marines and warships.

Beppo1234
28-11-2013, 13:52
nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Planetary invasion with troops to follow. But no one would ever try and assault a planet with only armies... it makes no sense. You need to mass destroy it first. Why? because transporting cannon fodder from one side of the galaxy to the other is a waste of resources, unless you can guarantee the survival of a majority of them, and take the planet successfully. Easier to destroy the population from orbit, then mop up with your armies. One would never try and overwhelm a planetary defense force with troop landings.

Felwether
28-11-2013, 14:02
I'd say that the primary Imperial assault upon such a world would be diplomatic in nature; it soldiers would be priests, politicians, Inquisitors, Rogue Traders and nobles, not armies of tanks, psychotic Space Marines and warships.

I like this idea and it's nice to see an answer that doesn't fit into either of the usual camps you see spring up when this topic inevitably rears its head again. Fair play. :yes:

TheDungen
28-11-2013, 14:16
It depends on so much more than numbers. weapons technology strategy and other advantages also play in. There's also the principle of divide and conquer, sur eif you allow the world to unite against you you may have a problem but if you isolate them (take out communications) you cna pick them of as you see fit. The planet crumbles to nations which if you're really skilled can be crumbled into individual communities. then you crush each and every one of those with overwhelming advantage adding their strenght to yours as you do so (the greater the gap between your power the greater chance you cna force a surrender or defeat them without to much damage to either you or them)
Also as we've seen time and time again, there are always people willing to side with the stronger side even if that means submitting. Or simply remain neutral with the same final consequence. to illustrate my point. (http://youtu.be/aLcHJN1soY4)

Beppo1234
28-11-2013, 14:34
I like this idea and it's nice to see an answer that doesn't fit into either of the usual camps you see spring up when this topic inevitably rears its head again. Fair play. :yes:

truth... what really matters in this thread, is what is the objective? Is it an agri world where you want the environment intact after you conquer it? Is it a resource world that your gonna strip bare and have no care for what's left over? Is it a population you want to acquire/liberate/assimilate/convert? Is it simply an enemy stronghold?

either way, if there is resistance... best thing to do is always thump 'em from orbit

Rowenstin
28-11-2013, 14:38
Re-reading the OP, I don't believe he's talking about how the IG would conquer present day Earth, he's just using it (us) as a start to calculate the amount of manpower a planet can gather, even one which is not a hive world. The question would be "how big of an army would be needed to conquer an Earth-like planet with 6,6 billion humans on it, if you are for whatever reason forced to do it using conventional means (not nuking, not bombing everything to rubble with the fleet, etc)" and how this conflicts with numbers given in the fluff.

Poncho160
28-11-2013, 15:15
I don't think that the Imperium would need to invade Earth to bring us into the imperiums fold, just turning up into orbit and explaining the situation would probably be enough to start negotiations into bringing us into the Imperium.

Beppo1234
28-11-2013, 15:26
Lure another species to assault the planet, then show up to 'rescue' the planet from the alien invaders.

=Angel=
28-11-2013, 15:52
People look at imperial tanks and say 'lol primitive' without thinking much about it.
Go look at the lasgun thread on the background discussion and you'll see that despite the aesthetic, 40k tech is actually several thousand years more advanced than us. (not 38,000 years because dark age and heresy, but still)

How would you stop a guard lander from making planetfall into Berlin, Washington, Moscow?
If your answer includes aircraft or missiles then I have bad news...

182450

That's what guard land in. theres a picture of a sillier one in the inferior current codex art (shaped like a double eagle over the deployment ramp) but yeah.
They can also land in valkyries (pictured for scale in that image) supported by Imperial navy fighters but yeah.

You are going to want to find bigger guns- and to those I say energy shields.
They're gonna land .

One of 40k's core ideas is that ranged weapons tech and armour have developed assymetrically, as they did in the past.
In the past, armour was better than thrown handweapons etc- hand to hand was better.
Then arrows... ranged combat got a leg up until full plate.
Full plate ruled the roost- but there were some bows that could penetrate it.. and suddenly guns.
Nothing has ever quite taken the top seat way from ranged combat yet.
In 40k, despite their awesome super lasers and heat rays and mass reactive exploding smart projectiles(bolts) the best armour is near impenetrable to the standard issue guns.
This necessitates chainswords to chew through body armour and power weapons to defeat powered armour- it swings a little back in favour of melee- while leaving ranged warfare still effective.

How powerful do you think their tanks are?
40ks autocannons (which seem to be their future versions of our own tank mounted cannons) can't damage the heaviest armour in a 40k scale battle.
Our Rpgs and tanks and so on might have a chance against the lighter vehicles (Chimera side armour etc) but those some tanks are mounting heavy rapid firing las weaponry that will probably tear ours to shreds.
And those are just the APCs!

Retrospectus
28-11-2013, 16:19
The biggest advantage the imperium has is the ability to cut of enemy logistics through orbital superiority. you can't move supplies by air because any aircraft will be spotted and tracked from orbit and suddenly you have a flight of thunderbolt on your ass. you can't move by sea because you'll be spotted and blasted from orbit or air striked. you can't move over land because, once again, you'll be spotted from orbit and either vapourised or (if that's not an option) finding yourself at the business end of a stormstrooper strike team or air strike. Conversely, the imperial forces have uninterrupted supply lines and can bring supplies and reinforcements from orbit if necessary so local forces will be scrounging for ever bite of food and every round of ammunition while imperial forces remain at full strength (ignoring combat losses of course).

The imperium will always have the logistical advantage and as anyone who likes their military history knows; logistics is the most important part of war. who cares if your soldiers are the best if you can't get them where they're needed or your tank has the most firepower if it has know shells to fire.

Menthak
28-11-2013, 16:28
People look at imperial tanks and say 'lol primitive' without thinking much about it.
Go look at the lasgun thread on the background discussion and you'll see that despite the aesthetic, 40k tech is actually several thousand years more advanced than us. (not 38,000 years because dark age and heresy, but still)

How would you stop a guard lander from making planetfall into Berlin, Washington, Moscow?
If your answer includes aircraft or missiles then I have bad news...

182450

That's what guard land in. theres a picture of a sillier one in the inferior current codex art (shaped like a double eagle over the deployment ramp) but yeah.
They can also land in valkyries (pictured for scale in that image) supported by Imperial navy fighters but yeah.

You are going to want to find bigger guns- and to those I say energy shields.
They're gonna land .

One of 40k's core ideas is that ranged weapons tech and armour have developed assymetrically, as they did in the past.
In the past, armour was better than thrown handweapons etc- hand to hand was better.
Then arrows... ranged combat got a leg up until full plate.
Full plate ruled the roost- but there were some bows that could penetrate it.. and suddenly guns.
Nothing has ever quite taken the top seat way from ranged combat yet.
In 40k, despite their awesome super lasers and heat rays and mass reactive exploding smart projectiles(bolts) the best armour is near impenetrable to the standard issue guns.
This necessitates chainswords to chew through body armour and power weapons to defeat powered armour- it swings a little back in favour of melee- while leaving ranged warfare still effective.

How powerful do you think their tanks are?
40ks autocannons (which seem to be their future versions of our own tank mounted cannons) can't damage the heaviest armour in a 40k scale battle.
Our Rpgs and tanks and so on might have a chance against the lighter vehicles (Chimera side armour etc) but those some tanks are mounting heavy rapid firing las weaponry that will probably tear ours to shreds.
And those are just the APCs!

What the hell is that guy next to the plasma gunner doing? he's not actually holding anything.

And yes, I agree with everything in the post. Regardless of possible numerical superiority that we'd have, we'd be hopelessly outclassed. Flak armour (as anyone who had played the RPGs will know) defends more than adequately from solid projectiles, whilst a lasgun makes short work of almost anything and has the advantage of being chargeable wherever.

Ssilmath
28-11-2013, 16:48
It's a common misconception that guns caused the downfall of armored soldiers. Plate armor was just as effective against muskets and pistols as against swords (The term bulletproof came from shooting the armor and proving it could stand up to bullets). The reason plate fell out of favor was logistics, as armies grew in size and heavy cavalry went from relatively few nobles to large formations. Guns themselves also became popular for the same reason, as training and arming the large number of troops was much easier to do with muskets and pike than with bow and sword/spear. For centuries, the bow was a superior weapon to firearms in terms of range, accuracy and rate of fire. Even today, modern body armor is reliably resilient against modern firepower, but is both heavy and expensive.

As for orbital bombardment, people need to return to their history books. Yes, orbital weapons are extremely powerful weapons, but bombardment has historically been poor at either killing or dislodging enemy troops. It's much better at destroying manufacturing. In fact, a bombed out city is one of the hardest to attack targets we've seen in warfare. Also, if you are going to just bombard a planet into oblivion, there is no reason to invade it other than to strip resources. If you want the population under your control, the manufacturing base intact and the planet more or less intact, you have to fight on the ground. Japan didn't surrender because of 2 nukes, they surrendered because they had lost almost their entire military, almost all of their territory and now were facing an opponent who was refusing the fight and content to just wipe their cities off the map.

Finally, regarding PDF...Most sources show them to be mediocre soldiers lead by mostly incompetent officers. The Guard has many ways of recruiting, and has a quite varied level of skill and competence. I wouldn't put them above modern Active Duty in terms of training, skill, discipline or training and the novels tend to bear that out. They are mostly competent and brave, a sophisticated and well equipped fighting force, but so is our modern military. They've got a technological advantage, but the OP isn't talking about modern Earth being attacked, just a planet with a similar population. So, provided the scenario given (Take planet more or less intact, technological equivalence, no orbital bombardments) you're looking at a pretty massive number of troops to take the planet and pacify it.

Thrax
28-11-2013, 16:59
Comparing "warfare by attrition" -type of combat doctrine used in WW I and WW II with anything before or after doesn't really get you far. In Iraq 2003 US took Baghdad with two brigades. When you translate that to actual numbers of fighting troops (you have to remember that way more than half of a US "combat" brigade is actually logistics, maintenance and other rear-echelong troops) its far less men than many Imperial Guard regiments have. Actually some WW II battalions had more fighting men in them...

Baghdad is hardly a fair comparison. There was little organized resistance and the people were all too happy to turn on their oppressors and loot whatever they could once the despot's forces faded away. The Americans expected heavy casualties IF there was concerted resistance, which there really wasn't.

For everyone recommending "nukes from orbit" please read the opening post.

Camman1984
28-11-2013, 17:39
I think people over estimate the fighting spirit of an invaded population. Countries have been successfully invaded by comparitively small armies before. Sure there would be insurgent problems but i expect the imperium would be more ruthless and less hamstrung by international law than say the americans in iraq etc.

I would guess that america could, if it wanted too, succesfully invade and take over the uk, but they wouldnt need an army of 100's of millons fighting tooth and nail with every man woman and child in the streets, theyre actual army would take out or command structure in a suprise attack, then mop up our army from the air while it tries to recover. Then send troops in whilst 90% of the population cower in their homes. And thats without crazy superiority like orbital platforms.

Torga_DW
28-11-2013, 19:37
There are a few things I adjust in my mind whenever I look at the numbers of soldiers of any type that GW puts out. The first thing I do is add a 0 at the end of every troop count. A regiment of 3,000 becomes 30,000, 5-10 regiments becomes 50-100, etc.

Pretty much this. GW scales and proportions have always been not-quite-right. If you consider a chapter of space marines as 10,000 line warriors it starts to become a bit more plausible (the amount of honour duty troops guarding planets of no significance/action alone would mean there'd be about 40 marines left in a chapter to fight their battles/wars).

I always loved the imperator titans, they would be described as being so tall they broke into cloud cover, yet in codex titanicus they're listed as being a whopping 25 to 40 metres tall (82 to 131 feet). Potentially carrying 30 marines in each leg. :D



It's a common misconception that guns caused the downfall of armored soldiers. Plate armor was just as effective against muskets and pistols as against swords (The term bulletproof came from shooting the armor and proving it could stand up to bullets). The reason plate fell out of favor was logistics, as armies grew in size and heavy cavalry went from relatively few nobles to large formations. Guns themselves also became popular for the same reason, as training and arming the large number of troops was much easier to do with muskets and pike than with bow and sword/spear. For centuries, the bow was a superior weapon to firearms in terms of range, accuracy and rate of fire. Even today, modern body armor is reliably resilient against modern firepower, but is both heavy and expensive.


Pretty much this too, although you need to look at thickness of plate, the differences between black powder and gun powder, rifling quality for aim, reload times, etc etc. (english longbowmen vs french knights is a good example). Also, the training involved in crossbows and rifles was relatively easier and more intuitive - sighting down a barrel/stock is much easier for someone with little to no experience.

But ned kelly is a great example of armour vs bullets - he wore thick plate of iron iirc (don't think i paid much attention but have a feeling it was just iron not steel) that were impervious to the gunfire of the time (the unprotected parts of his body got hit pretty badly though).

TheDungen
28-11-2013, 20:22
You are still not up to date on your sun tzu, "Victorious fighters win first and then go to war" orbital superiority also means the imperium will be choosing their battles, and they will probably have some kind of plan. Also note that the guard has a lot of equipment that a pdf lack.

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." Again the imperium knows that they may be outnumbered by the pdf so they will chose to destroy the enemy in places where they are weak.
"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." The imperium will try to win in as few battles as possible, attacking specific targets rather than the main bulk of the enemy army.

this is the reason that spacemarine chapters can theoretically conquer worlds, that they take out enemy leadership and communications then force a surrender. Ofcourse in reality 1000 is to low even for that and perhaps even a IG force is to small, but it's not as clear cut as some would hold it to be.

Killgore
28-11-2013, 20:37
Kill the leadership, mop up the rest latter.

For example take and control the major administrative and leadership centres in America, China, Russia. The world's superpowers will then fail, the rest is a matter of time, either through alliances with other countries, fear, surrender or anihilation.

=Angel=
28-11-2013, 21:35
Kill a few banks and financial institutions- suddenly you only own what's in your hands.
Society is very very fragile.

Have the techpriests get their mechadendrites into the internet.
Once they've downloaded it all into a crystal on someone's belt, they send in a virus that hijacks all our satellites and comms.
We're back to carrier pigeons and radio.

The sheer political ramifications of humans from another world starting an attack on America... How many other nations would even help? Ditto an attack on Russia etc. What, you want us to cross your borders with aid? What about the yakyak treaty of 19diggity2?
How many nations would simply make treaties or enter negotiations?

This isn't independance day- and it's not like living under imperial rule would be 'worse' than many nations current predicament.

Sure there are witch hunts- but the witches are real!
Of course there is blind hate and discrimination- chaos cults have to be rooted out.

Archon of Death
28-11-2013, 22:06
As was stated before, Earth is an example of a "civilized" world, which would be able to bring forth an army to come to bear against the attackers. The numbers are for calculation purposes, as the engagement would end up being protracted by the numbers that could be fielded (leading to a general percentage of those total bodies needing to be killed before surrender would be an acceptable to the defenders).

The key issue in this is a question as to how long a general civilized world would hold out against ASSAULT by an invading Imperial force. To find out if the estimates given by the novel series are realistic or drastically underestimated.

~_~ It seems I should have refreshed before posting, guess there were a lot more answers since when I clicked on the topic and everyone was on about how Earth would end up doing... Apologies.

KingDeath
28-11-2013, 22:38
Sure there are witch hunts- but the witches are real!
Of course there is blind hate and discrimination- chaos cults have to be rooted out.

It is the Imperium's very nature which causes many of these chaos cults to exist in the first place :D

Retrospectus
28-11-2013, 23:21
As for orbital bombardment, people need to return to their history books. Yes, orbital weapons are extremely powerful weapons, but bombardment has historically been poor at either killing or dislodging enemy troops. It's much better at destroying manufacturing. In fact, a bombed out city is one of the hardest to attack targets we've seen in warfare. Also, if you are going to just bombard a planet into oblivion, there is no reason to invade it other than to strip resources. If you want the population under your control, the manufacturing base intact and the planet more or less intact, you have to fight on the ground. Japan didn't surrender because of 2 nukes, they surrendered because they had lost almost their entire military, almost all of their territory and now were facing an opponent who was refusing the fight and content to just wipe their cities off the map.


When I mentioned orbital strikes i was thinking more along the lines of an airstrike your enemy has no chance of intercepting (with the tradeoff of being less precise)
you don't blast cities you destroy airfields, factories and large groups of enemy soldiers and materiel (after the first few times that happens most large groups would likely split up to avoid that fate, even with communication networks gone)


as for the original question I think we are having much more fun plotting an imperial invasion of contemporary earth rather than a 40k earth equivelant. so it seems we'll have to accept a change of topic

SpanielBear
29-11-2013, 04:28
How often does the imperium actually invade a planet to attack the indigenous population, now the crusade is over? From my understanding, it seems that the vast majority of campaigns are fought to dislodge one if the Imperium's enemies from a world that was initially imperial or neutral. So the enemy it ends up fighting is often not so much the planets population, but a garrison force or the force of a previous invader. It's why the control of the space lanes and orbit becomes do important- in practice, both sides would need materiel from elsewhere in the galaxy in order to maintain/break control of the world, and being able to re supply yourself, while denying the enemy, is key.

m1acca1551
29-11-2013, 04:59
I've always added numbers to GW figures in regards to troop strength especially when talking crusade and planetary invasions.

As for the off topic discussion in regards to a hypothetical invasion of our planet I don't think there would be much fighting at all.
- the sheer awe of being contacted by beings from another planet! X this by 1000 when the being that walks of the drop ship is in fact human and not some alien.
- huge swathes of the population would immediately convert to following the new comers especially if they were human.
- the sheer display of brute strength would put any nation or group of sane mind thinking of resisting to bed without a shot being fired.
- radicals who did wish to fight would need to hold in areas of strategic importance or places of worth, otherwise they will simply be obliterated from orbit, and earth PDF elements would be tasked with suppressing the uprising to prove loyalty.

To put it simply, the imperium would have to do very little to subjugate earth, simply ask yourself "if the imperium did come to earth, what would you do??" Me, I'd put down the burger, hit the gym and yell "gene seed me up!!".

SpanielBear
29-11-2013, 05:23
"You know about gene-seed? Heresy! Now help us round up all the people who don't match a pre-conceived ideal of 'normal' so they can be branded mutants. Then report to Tech-adept Smythe for mind scrubbing and servitor assessment."

I think there may be a little more home grown resistance than you anticipate. It would be ultimately futile, but since when has that stopped humanity from squaring off against something monolithically bigger and stronger?

The Emperor
29-11-2013, 09:48
How often does the imperium actually invade a planet to attack the indigenous population, now the crusade is over? From my understanding, it seems that the vast majority of campaigns are fought to dislodge one if the Imperium's enemies from a world that was initially imperial or neutral. So the enemy it ends up fighting is often not so much the planets population, but a garrison force or the force of a previous invader. It's why the control of the space lanes and orbit becomes do important- in practice, both sides would need materiel from elsewhere in the galaxy in order to maintain/break control of the world, and being able to re supply yourself, while denying the enemy, is key.

The impression I got was that the Imperium is constantly going on the offensive as well as fighting on the defensive. For every thousand wars they're fighting to defend their worlds from alien invasions, Chaos cults, or insurrection, they're fighting another thousand wars to conquer worlds in uncharted space, either exterminating the native alien populations on those worlds or bringing formerly independent human worlds into the Imperial fold. The Macharian Crusade was the most extreme example of that, given how many worlds he conquered in such a small span of time, but the Imperium going on the offensive isn't an unusual thing. If the Tau homeworld hadn't been hidden by warp storms after it was first discovered then the Imperium would've probably purged the population soon after to make room for human colonists.

MT Bucket
29-11-2013, 11:05
Assaulting a prepared position usually requires about a 10:1 ratio for the attackers, and I think that its fair to say that Earth represents a prepared position to a force that needs to land from orbit. I think that it's fair to say that the parameters set out in the OP assumes the Imperium wants to try to 'play fair'. However, there's nothing to say that our world leaders will do likewise - nuclear / chemical strikes on landing grounds could be considered and would give landing forces something to think about. Mutually assured destruction would also be considered in the face of an overwhelming enemy seeking to supplant the leadership of the world - after all we lived under 50 years of such a mindset following WW2. The alternative is the guerrilla war strategy - pick your battles, strike and fade etc. In the Imperium's favour is a divided nation state model that looks to national self-interest first.

Another thing that needs to be considered is the difference between taking an objective and holding it. Baghdad 2003 is a good example - if the Imperium invaded and failed to keep control then they face an ongoing insurrection. However, they would not be contrained by political games, financial restrictions or the niceties of treaties. Roll in the Adeptus Arbites and Inquisition!

Then everybody realises what a neo-fascist, totalitarian nightmare the Imperium actually represents.

quantumcollider
29-11-2013, 11:15
At the present day it seems quite impossible for any country to conquer another large or populous country, let alone a continent or a whole world.

Yet this is exactly what happened during the colonial era. Spain conquered most of the Americas, with a mere 127 adventurers effectively toppling the Incan empire. Britain, France, Germany and Belgium carved up Africa. The British East India Company was the defacto ruler of India.The tiny Netherlands reigned supreme in current Indonesia.

All these powers made use of the idea that in order to conquer a country, you need to defeat their armies in the field (where the western technological superiority was decisive), then find out that those people valued most (their ruler, capitol city, temples) and take it from them. Then install a system where the local nobility is kept in power (under contol of the conquering power obviously) to keep the populace under control.

The whole idea of total war, where a whole nation is geared for war, where everyone is to contribute to the war and give their all, is a rather modern 'invention'. Clausevitz formalized the theory only in the 19th century. And the principle that defeating a country in battle is easy, but fighting an ongoing insurrection afterwards is really difficult was recognized only as late as after the 2nd world war.

So I would say it is very much possible for an IG expeditionary force to subdue a planet. It depends on the mentality of the people on the planet. If their Imperial Commander is an autocrat that the people do not particulary care for (especially if he's a bit of a heretic) then the IG will probably only have to defeat the Governor's household troops, smash some vital defenses, capture some strategic and symbolic locations, install loyal Imperial personell at vital positions and call it a day. On the other hand, the people of Armageddon will NEVER stop fighting for their world as long as a single Ork sets foot on their ashfields. No matter how many roks crash to the surface, or how many hive cities are obliterated.

TheDungen
29-11-2013, 12:46
Assaulting a prepared position usually requires about a 10:1 ratio for the attackers, and I think that its fair to say that Earth represents a prepared position to a force that needs to land from orbit. I think that it's fair to say that the parameters set out in the OP assumes the Imperium wants to try to 'play fair'. However, there's nothing to say that our world leaders will do likewise - nuclear / chemical strikes on landing grounds could be considered and would give landing forces something to think about. Mutually assured destruction would also be considered in the face of an overwhelming enemy seeking to supplant the leadership of the world - after all we lived under 50 years of such a mindset following WW2. The alternative is the guerrilla war strategy - pick your battles, strike and fade etc. In the Imperium's favour is a divided nation state model that looks to national self-interest first.

Another thing that needs to be considered is the difference between taking an objective and holding it. Baghdad 2003 is a good example - if the Imperium invaded and failed to keep control then they face an ongoing insurrection. However, they would not be contrained by political games, financial restrictions or the niceties of treaties. Roll in the Adeptus Arbites and Inquisition!

Then everybody realises what a neo-fascist, totalitarian nightmare the Imperium actually represents.

Bull, you can't give a number like that it depends on the period, just take the raid that killed bin-ladin for an example a prepared location with the defender outnumbering the attackers 10:1 but yet they succeeded. Why? because of better tactics training and technology.

In fact fortifications today are pretty much worthless the way to defend is to destroy the enemy before they get in striking range. This is done by superior mobility, superior firepower and most of all superior intelligence (as in information). Efficient radar and signal tracking is the most valuable technology there is today as well as intigrated systems that allow units to almost instantly benefit from the intelligence of each other.

Ofcourse 30k is 28k years into the future and 40k, 38k, but that means we know even less how these things work. We can't jsut take modern number or even worse medieval numbers (such as your 10:1) and applying them on the grim darkness of the far future.

=Angel=
29-11-2013, 12:52
I think that its fair to say that Earth represents a prepared position to a force that needs to land from orbit.

Why do you think thats fair to say? We have nations that HATE each other. We would not present a unified defense.

And once again-
182474

Giant landing craft with armour impervious to our weapons. They could land one ON the white house, the Kremlin whatever.
Politically and technologically we are not prepared to face the Imperium.
Nukes wont help.

The Emperor
29-11-2013, 14:06
Do you have a link to where one can find out more about those craft? What they're called, what kinds of weapons they're resistant to, Etc.?

Solonor
29-11-2013, 16:03
Lure another species to assault the planet, then show up to 'rescue' the planet from the alien invaders.

We are talking Imperium of Man not Eldar ;)

Nazrax
29-11-2013, 20:37
Interesting question.

What sort of time frame does the Imperium have? What are the goals?

I would assume that since it is a human world that is not dancing with Daemons and partying with Dark Eldar that the Imperium would want to integrate the world for tithes, maybe it also has some sort of strategic value in its location, etc.

With a large enough time frame I would think that the Imperium would want to pacify and integrate the world using infiltration and subversion. Learning as much as it can about the world and its people. Subverting political, financial, religious and cultural systems and institutions to the Imperial Creed. Controlling banks, political figures, religious figures, media outlets, etc. all would work towards subjugating the populace. Using superior tech to subvert computer systems and communication systems would also go a long way towards the goal of integration. As an aside imagine the fun one could have using facebook, twitter, etc. to work towards alien invasion lol. It would be a troll's paradise!

After getting a controlling hand through subversion and infiltration, next would come shock and awe. As others have mentioned in earlier posts using media to show massive space fleets and troop concentrations. Taking out a well known landmark or cultural symbol with ease through exotic weaponry(Laser Cannon, Plasma, etc.) would cause quite a stir I imagine lol. Use the subverted political and religious assets to either openly declare for the Imperium or to press for talks. Show overwhelming power/force. Play up the "human" aspect. Show the terror of Xenos and hint at worse(warp horrors, etc.) Show the benefits of Imperial rule. The safety and sense of purpose being in the Imperial fold gives. The Emperor as an actual real being for worship, real miracles(use some psykers or AdMech tech)

I think there is quite abit that can be said about all of the work involved as each thing I have briefly touched upon could be greatly expanded and looked at in far more detail. Obviously there would be complications that arise and would need to be addressed. However all said and done we shouldnt forget that there are organizations in the Imperium that are specifically tasked with this very thing.
Of course all of this is assuming that there isnt some other necessity as to why the Imperium needs this world. I can see the Imperium having to brute-force integration through military means because there is a Waaaagghh coming and will be here in 10 years or something along those lines.

The sheer amount of variables that must be considered when undertaking an operation of this size is mind numbing.

Lord-Gen Bale Chambers
30-11-2013, 02:09
It is either in the BFG rule book or FFG Rogue Trader RPG, but one of them states the standard practice of the imperial navy when encountering a new human civilization is to identify the second largest city on the planet and destroy it from orbit. Then open negotiations.

Regarding guard regiment sizes, they are all different. The 3.5 ed codex says 3,000 because that is the size a normal troop transport carries, IA 3 had a blurb listing the Tallaran regiments size as 10,000 and the Death Korps seige companies in the seige of Vraks were listed as being 100,000 strong regiments.

Personally, I like 10,000 as the size of a well equipped regiment, 20,000 for light infantry, 5,000 for drop troops. Using these numbers, if you read the 13th black crusade fluff on the 40k wiki, you get army groups that each number a few million based on the organization.

If a handful of regiments were to invade a planet, it would have to be a limited campaign with navy support. Cripple their ability to resist with military hardware and force the leadership to comply, occupy a limited area and make the locals police themselves and maintain order. Step in when examples need to be made.

Hrw-Amen
30-11-2013, 18:56
It does depend a lot on what timescale is involved surely? If it is a long time in the planning I am reasonably sure that the Imperium would have agents planted on Earth months, if not years in advance of any actual invasion. I could see them attempting to learn all they can about the planets politics but possibly more important from an Imperial perspective the planet's religions. Maybe those agents placing themselves into Earths various major religions getting as high up as possible (Depending on the time frame.) they could be reporting back to the Imperial authorities especially the Imperial Church which when the invasion fleet arrives would already have a prepared dogma about how many of Earth's historical religious leaders were manifestations of the Emperor or even representatives sent centuries ago to prepare Earth for the time when the Imperium would come in force. All of Earth's major religions would somehow be shoehorned into the Imperial creed, creating a mass of Emperor worshipers overnight in many otherwise opposing nations. I am sure that would go a long way to quelling any resistance they may face. Just imagine if the leaders of each major faith turned out to be Imperial Cardinals in reality planted on Earth when they were (Apparently young.) and they called on all their followers to lay down arms and fall in to line.

bittick
30-11-2013, 20:34
I'm going to disagree with a lot of what is written above. I'm going to take the position that it is, in fact, possible for the Imperium to conquer worlds using only the listed numbers. Usually.

It all depends, you see, on the Orks.

Modern day Earth would be an extreme rarity. Here we have a planet with well over 100 individual countries, each with their own military forces. These nations are in constant opposition to one another and have large entrenched armies. The biggest nations have had many decades of constant entrenchment and positioning to better prepare themselves for war. Attacking the Earth today would be like stumbling into 100 hornets nests. The talk above about hacking the internet and turning our satellites against us (reducing us to carrier pigeons, I believe was the term) shows a lack of understanding. All the important stuff in our military command structure has redundancy after redundancy built in to prevent this exactly like that. The Cold War was all about preparing for every possible scenario. Sure, you may blow up the White House, even the entire city, but then you've got the Secretary of Agriculture who is 9th in line for the Presidency, and he's squirreled away to an unknown location, and he's launching nukes with a direct land-line.

Talk about super-armor and "38,000 years in the future" is really unimportant (though I disagree with Angel entirely). The Imperium has always been portrayed as having a mixture of futuristic and extremely backwards technology. But it doesn't matter, because they aren't going to be fighting modern Earth. They're going to be fighting opponents in their own universe and their own time, with similar levels of technology.

Which is why it all comes down to the orks. As I said earlier, modern Earth would be an incredible rarity. You just aren't going to run into many planets other than Cadia that have poured that many resources into defense for that long. What are planets going to be prepared for? The threat they are most likely to face: orks. Most planets will have a military capable of fending off the average ork attack. And the average ork attack is not a Waaagh, it's a raid by a planetary tribe that you can't quite wipe out. They build up in numbers, build some Mad Max vehicles from crap they found in a junk yard, and every 5 or 10 years they start attacking your cities. So your PDF forces march out and kill them, and you make a half-assed effort at finding where they come from (because they're incredibly hard to wipe out completely -- even if you do a great job, they'll just attack again in 10-15 years instead of 5-10). And there you go, you're good.

What that means is that most PDFs are going to be relatively small compared to modern Earth forces. The US has 11 aircraft carriers. In the 40K universe, their equivalents would be large space battleships. No PDF group has that. Most worlds spend substantially less on their military and substantially more on monument building. You aren't going to see most worlds with an Operation Barbarossa level force because the worst they normally face is Warboss Humungous and his twenty thousand-strong ork horde. Sure, it's scary and all, but it's not a real threat to planetary stability.

The biggest reason the Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs is because everyone else hated them. It wasn't just 100 or so Spaniards, it was every other tribe in the area who were sick of the Aztecs pushing them around and sacrificing their virgins to the sun god. Likewise, most worlds the Imperium tries to conquer, they're just replacing one dictator with another. You don't have free people who wave the flag and love their country. Generally you've got an oppressed people who aren't willing to stick their neck out.

Hence, the smaller numbers needed in most wars. You don't need to import soldiers to point guns at the civilians. The local police force already do that. You just need to kill their leader and be the new guy who signs the cops' paychecks.

Tim_Ward
30-11-2013, 23:33
Further to the above, I would like to point out that planets as developed and populated as Earth would also be a comparative rarity in 40k. Most sub-sectors seem to have no more than handful of planets with populations measured in the billions, and fewer still having the double-digit billions of a major hive-world. So when you hear about Lord Commander Such and Such conquering a planet with 20 Space Marines, a ball of yarn and length of copper pipe it's not necessarily a teeming hive world home to many billions, it could just be a resource extraction settlement with perhaps only a few major settlements and population in millions. Many of these lesser worlds would not be especially well developed in terms of infrastructure: they would have what they needed in terms of fulfilling their economic function: mining, farming, whatevs, but not more. Everything else they need would be imported from off-world. So, they would not necessarily be able to support, logistically, a military of equivalent size/capability to one fielded by an equivalent sized nation on modern-day Earth. Plus, manpower used in the military is manpower not being used mining space rocks. Better to rely on the Imperium for defence - it's what it's there for.

Speaking of logistics, if there were a 40k world with a population and level of development similar to Earth, if they rebel and the Imperium shows up to reconquer the world, then how are they going to arm their billions-strong army when all the really cool stuff is actually manufactured on a forge-world two sectors away, when a) the Imperial Navy is blockading the system b) a loyal forge world would not sell weapons to a rebellious planet in the first place. They could maybe manufacture simple things like lasguns themselves, but when the Ad-Mech has a monopoly on any sophisticated technologies the options for rebellious worlds building massive armies from scratch are also rather limited. Also, where does this planets supply of promethium come from? If it is from off-world, then they're pretty much boned in terms of running a mechanized force.

TL:DR; you can't make necessarily assumptions about a world in the Imperium by comparing it to modern Earth.

Retrospectus
01-12-2013, 00:12
I think a lot of people had decided it was more fun to discuss invading earth rather than an earth like planet so thats why people keep using earth as a reference

flota
01-12-2013, 04:19
If the Imperium found us, communications would be started. After some talks I firmly believe most politicians around the world could "sell" the planet.
I mean, if they receive an offer of riches and power in the new regime, many would do it.

Take out communications and command, strike in the disarray = success

Enviado desde mi Nexus 4 mediante Tapatalk

TheDungen
01-12-2013, 09:13
Why do you think thats fair to say? We have nations that HATE each other. We would not present a unified defense.

And once again-
182474

Giant landing craft with armour impervious to our weapons. They could land one ON the white house, the Kremlin whatever.
Politically and technologically we are not prepared to face the Imperium.
Nukes wont help.

Of course that depends on if they are attacking us in our reality or we ended up in theirs. In our reality we'd kick the **** out of that. Just aim for the engine exhausts with smart missle systems and watch gravity do the rest. size is really only a disadvantage in reality. Shields are impossible in our reality so you can just forget about those.

In their reality yeah we'd probably be screwed.

Poncho160
01-12-2013, 09:35
I don't think you can dismiss shields as impossible, I've read quite a few articles this year about scientists researching radiation shields for use in any potential future Mars missions.

Long jump from radiation shield to actual physical energy shield, but it shows that the technology is potentially there (hopefully! haha).

StygianBeach
01-12-2013, 11:42
I think Orbital Bombardment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjIlqrAfbbg=320495) is the only practical solution.

I could imagine an invasion would only be practical if the Imperium made contact with 1 nation first and was assisting them in pacifying their neighbors.

hazmiter
01-12-2013, 11:57
When coming up with a scenario like the one the OP has set up, not only does the worlds armies need to taken into account,
But the actual civilian population that would potentially be drafted/drawn into the combatant side of things.

The sheer fact that back during the Cold War era of our history, they had the M.A.D protocol (mutually assured destruction)

Put that into the calculations, and then wonder if its still feasible to invade for hostile take over.
Im quite sure that in that event, the worlds big notes, who run the military and countries at that, would prefer to set off nukes
And wipe out the whole world.....

As an optimum measure, i would say diplomacy would work better than invasion.
Not only do they gain a strategic point, but they would also gain an ally in a way......

SpanielBear
01-12-2013, 12:07
What happens if we factor psykers into this debate? As things stand, if the Imperium found Earth as it is now, the immediate question would be: how in the name of the emperor are there so many Blanks and Pariahs on one planet? We're currently to all intents and purposes a planet with the same psychic foot-print as the Tau- almost zero.

Which makes us an extremely tempting prize for the imperium. We have an entire planet that is free of warp taint, I think that would justify a colossal amount of resource expenditure to capture and study.

Alternatively, we are just a few days/weeks/years/hours from psychic apotheosis, and actual psykers may start to emerge. That has a whole host of dangers we just could not currently existentially cope with. After the fifth daemonic incursion, and Europe is a blasted daemonic wasteland, how much effort would the imperium need to expend to take control of the survivors? Particularly as they can promise protection from the daemons and witches.

Felwether
01-12-2013, 14:49
What happens if we factor psykers into this debate? As things stand, if the Imperium found Earth as it is now, the immediate question would be: how in the name of the emperor are there so many Blanks and Pariahs on one planet? We're currently to all intents and purposes a planet with the same psychic foot-print as the Tau- almost zero.


Not true. Just because you're not a psyker doesn't mean you don't have a warp presence. Pariahs and Blanks take it to a completely different level.

TheDungen
01-12-2013, 14:53
I don't think you can dismiss shields as impossible, I've read quite a few articles this year about scientists researching radiation shields for use in any potential future Mars missions.

Long jump from radiation shield to actual physical energy shield, but it shows that the technology is potentially there (hopefully! haha).

Rotating polar magnetic fields, those have been suggested for controlling fusion too. But it only works against radiation not against solid objects (or well it works on solid objects but so little it's really only useful against diffusive movement, such as heat). Shields are generally refereed to as energy fields, and that concept is actually about as much nonsense as the concept aura. (But forcefields such as the aforementioned rotating magnetic field are possible)

the best explanation I've heard is mass effect's kinetic barriers using particles rotating at extreme velocities as a defence. Again that would be a force (magnetic again) field not an energy field. But that would only work in vacuum cause particles moving that fast in an atmosphere would set the air inside the 'shield' on fire.

Energy simply exists, it does not field, it does not shield, it does not come in pints or puddles and it does not tap dance.

SpanielBear
01-12-2013, 15:15
My point was more that we have never had an emergent psyker out of a population of billions, or if we have, we have a system of control that is both discrete and maximally effective. Still a subject of great interest for the Inquisition, I'd have thought.

Telemachus
01-12-2013, 15:40
You could always just read Courage and Honour.

Planetary infiltration by specialist teams? - Check.
Knock out planetary communications? - Check
Capture planetary leadership? - Check
Lightning fast attacks, feints and withdrawal to confuse defenders? - Check
Isolate and attack individual cities? - Check
Use superior weapons technology to blindside enemy? - Check
Make sure that the full 4th Company of the Ultramarines isn't on the planet before you invade? - Bugger.

spacemonkeymojo
01-12-2013, 16:33
I think that Lanchester's Law shows how taking a planet is more of an example as to how a smaller sized force can be successful. Given that there is really no way to control all tactical spots of a planet, I could see a combined engagement utilizing the naval forces in orbit as well as sea, air, land forces. If IG were taking a forgeworld - I could see the easiest way to take control would be to capture space ports (A well developed forge world would in theory have raw materials and food goods imported due to the nature of the planet surface covered in industry). Effectively this could lead to a take and hold situation where the planet is starved into submission. Keep in mind that while a forge world makes lots of war machine items that does not necesarily mean tech priests there are experts in using them to defend. In the event of say an imperial world, let's say the existing pdf is stationed around specific tactical points and spread out across the planet. When an IG force comes to attack, just by presenting a larger offensive force up front, they have an advantage versus spread out defenders to break the line. I would guess that the IG would first establish an orbital presence (taking out a space station or orbital defenses to break the line) then a ground force would want to be established to clear landing areas for ground reinforcements. This may involve taking a space port or a local pdf facility that has landing fields access. Once this is done - political and tactical efforts involved concerted movements beweeen sea, air, land would hit so that the existing forces could not counter attack. If this continues successfully, we would ideally have the existing planet lose enough resources to give up politically. This is assuming, the resources of the planet would be wanted.

=Angel=
05-12-2013, 11:36
Re- landing craft


182813
This:
182814
Carries these:
182815

Still no word on what the top ones are called or the eagley ones on the current IG codex.

Loginis
05-12-2013, 12:08
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33692099/INFERNO-MAGAZINE-THE-CONQUEST-OF-OBZIDION
Well, if you look at those battlecruisers, then you can see that this is quite old. Was it made before Battlefleet Gothic? The ship designs aren't that diifferent, they actually resemble a transport from the FFG Rogue Trader RPG.

Polaria
05-12-2013, 12:26
Of course that depends on if they are attacking us in our reality or we ended up in theirs. In our reality we'd kick the **** out of that. Just aim for the engine exhausts with smart missle systems and watch gravity do the rest. size is really only a disadvantage in reality. Shields are impossible in our reality so you can just forget about those.

In their reality yeah we'd probably be screwed.

I our reality smart missiles are very specialized tools designed to target and destroy things that look and act like the targets we expect them to hit. Aside from GPS/INS or laser targeted ordanance they are not "all-target solutions". In our reality anti-air smart missiles are not programmed to target something that look like an Imperial landing ship. So unless we got a fair amount of intelligence on what to expect and several weeks or months to recode the missiles they simply would be no better than "dumb" missiles are... Some of the older Soviet anti-aircraft stuff that can be manually controlled would actually be better.

=Angel=
05-12-2013, 19:27
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33692099/INFERNO-MAGAZINE-THE-CONQUEST-OF-OBZIDION
Well, if you look at those battlecruisers, then you can see that this is quite old. Was it made before Battlefleet Gothic? The ship designs aren't that diifferent, they actually resemble a transport from the FFG Rogue Trader RPG.

They do predate gothic though gothic probably drew from these.
The imperium has a ton of equipment though, so it's likely they haven't fallen out of canon.
The newer blockish ones that appeared on the previous codex and also in boom, I can find nothing more about which is a pity.
They look awesome and are clearly an important part of guard deployments.
Whenever the guard deploy in anything flimsyer it seems it's so that the author can get them shot down and advance the plot!

All those landings which go off without a hitch or are never mentioned probably involve these behemoths- which suits the game.
The less we need to worry about how we got to the surface of a hostile world the sooner we can roll dice!

Retrospectus
05-12-2013, 19:32
Of course that depends on if they are attacking us in our reality or we ended up in theirs. In our reality we'd kick the **** out of that. Just aim for the engine exhausts with smart missle systems and watch gravity do the rest. size is really only a disadvantage in reality. Shields are impossible in our reality so you can just forget about those.

In their reality yeah we'd probably be screwed.
you realize that anti air missiles aren't designed to kill armoured targets right? they rely mostly on kinetic energy and have a tiny warhead. keep in mind that these ships are designed to take anti-air fire on the way down, considering we've never had to engage something that big and armoured with anti-air weapons before, our arsenal would not be very effective and those things tend to come in fleets. shoot one down the imperium has a hundred more.

also what good would shooting the engines do? all that does is force it to land on that spot where it's hovering rather than wherever it was going. it's not like a modern aircraft where taking out the engine (assuming it survived the impact) means it's not generating thrust causing it to lose speed and therefore lift. those dropships don't need to generate lift that way (can't really)

Connor MacLeod
06-12-2013, 19:38
Conquering a planet depends on the kind of planet, its resources/technology base, level of preparation, how much they know about Imperial capabilities, political and cultural dynamics, etc. It'd be a very complicated issue. For example, what if your culture is very individualistic? You might not have a strong central government or one with any authority to draft/conscript huge chunks of the population (or it may but doing so may be deemed extremely unpopular, because of the risks of death/injury to loved ones, etc.) If they are sensitive to casualties (on both sides, as is the case with modern warfare) then they may have less resolve against someone who is more determined to win despite losses (such as the fanatical Death Korps.) Their economic and industrial power matters, because it will cost money to train and equip those soldiers and there are many issues you will have to balance (unlimited needs vs limited resources - budgets for example.) Logistics and training are a huge one (again where money is concerned, but also time. But you also have to feed, clothe, equip, and maintain all those troops, move them around, move the supplies you need around to support them, move the people who do the actual supporting, etc.) Another aspect of industry is that there may be factors as to how many people you can conscript without affecting the economy or industrial capabilities (if you draft all the able bodied men and women, who is going to help run the factories, etc.)

In the case of an invasion the Imperium will have certain advantages assuming they have at least naval support. They have orbital surveillance and artillery for one thing. Even if they don't pull out WMD-scale yields for bombardment or as a terror tactic, it is possible to have bombardment support (As in the novel 13th Legion and other similar examples) to at least some extent, and the Navy would be able to observe and monitor events happening at least on the surface of the world (observe deployment and formations, travel, things like that.)

They would also be able to obliterate virtually any satellites in orbit, which may very well put a crimp in communicatons and detection abilities of the defenders (Think of things like no cell phones, or GPS or thngs like that - you could still have communications but you'd have to get around line of sight limitations other ways.)

Even if orbital bombardment were a non-factor, the ability to deploy from orbit via dropships (many of which carry their own armaments, such as the devourer or Tetracch landers, or the IG dropships we see on the cover of the 5th IG codex.) and they can pretty much pick and choose where they want to deploy/invade. The enemy may not have that same ability to quickly redeploy his forces to concentrate them, but he also cannot keep them concentrated (both because they'd be at risk of orbital bombardment of large concentrations, as well as the fact that you'd leave portions of the surface exposed to invasion, making redeploying to invade difficult.) And there was the aforementioned ability to interdict many forms of transport (by sea, by air, etc.) in various ways.

Now, all that said, the way the Guard fights once it actually gets there is far from set in stone. Each regiment fights its own ways, and even then you have officers who will have learned to fight differently (and of varying levels of education, ability, and overall competence. Not everyone is a Macharius, or a Creed, or Slaydo.) and this is going to have a huge impact on the way they fight, how they will use the resources they are allocated, etc. What if you have the guys who were in charge of Taros or Vraks in charge? They'd more likely misuse the resources they have or otherwise just mess it up no matter how advanced they are or even with orbital dominance (They had it both at Taros and Vraks and squandered that as well.) In this regard, Krieg may not be the most effective force to deploy because they are fanatical about 'victory at any cost' and they don't really bother measuring the cost (there's a reason they use commissars as voices of reason...)

There is also the psyker aspect. Not so much in that TK or psychic lightning will be the decsive bit (although that can have its use in the right circumstnace) but because many of them can be psychic communicators, or divination/scrying, or any of a number of psychic 'scanning/detection' measures. Or the ability to influence the minds of soldiers/officers on the other side (weakening their resolve, causing them to make mistakes, etc.)

It will also depend on how they are supplied. The Guard (and the Munitorum) are not known for always lavishly equipping their troops, or even equipping them to the best standards possible (part of that is the inconsistencies in their logistical chain, such as due to the warp, some of it is bureaucratic inertia and intransigence/arrogance, greed and corruption, and so on.) so Guard logistics/allotments is similarily going to be random. They might be well equipped in munitions, vehicles, and the like or they may just have a bunch of guys with flak jackets and laser rifles. Maintaining that supply will also matter, as if the yrun out of materials there is no way they can persecute the war unless they get ahold of manufacturing and resources on planet.

It can also matter in the manner in which they are recruited. Due to the nature of tithing, they don't always have the best control over the kinds of troops they amass, how well they start out equipped, or trainned, or whatever. You can literally run the gamut from new conscripts with minimal (or no) training and a rifle, to hardened veterans and storm troopers with vast experience/training and substantial resources to call on. The composition of the force, the time it may have trained together (if at all) to devleop cohesion, and training and such will also make a huge difference. And same goes for the officers (especially, since they're the ones making and carrying out the plans. you don't want the 40K version of Zapp Brannigan leading your invasion.)

09philj
08-12-2013, 14:23
An invasion of our planet by imperial forces would follow this path, probably:
1. World leaders try to negotiate
2. Initial orbital bombardment of strategic points
3. Mass landing of imperial troops subjugates populace of planet with superior numbers and, tanks, and if we're really unlucky Space Marines.
4. Small forces will enter into guerrilla warfare with occupying troops over an extended period, especially in areas where guns can be easily acquired.
OR
3. World leaders cause nuclear holocaust.

09philj
08-12-2013, 14:30
Conquering a planet as varied as earth would require a cohesive attack by a variety of specialist regiments in order to cancel out home advantage. At the very least, you would need specialists in city fighting, desert warfare, cold weather operations, and possibly Jungle Fighters too. If I were in charge I'd want Cadians (or similar) as my main force backed up by Tallarns, Valhallans and Catachans.

TheDungen
08-12-2013, 16:48
I our reality smart missiles are very specialized tools designed to target and destroy things that look and act like the targets we expect them to hit. Aside from GPS/INS or laser targeted ordanance they are not "all-target solutions". In our reality anti-air smart missiles are not programmed to target something that look like an Imperial landing ship. So unless we got a fair amount of intelligence on what to expect and several weeks or months to recode the missiles they simply would be no better than "dumb" missiles are... Some of the older Soviet anti-aircraft stuff that can be manually controlled would actually be better.

Swedish made RBS15 (which is cold war gear, ancient) locks unto the radar profile of a specific target and will then avoid other targets presented and even hide in terrain and clouds to avoid getting seen before it can hit it's target. And one of those can cripple an aircraft-carrier, I think they could cripple an exhaust ports of one of those ships to. At least that's what we call smart missiles in Sweden, I have never heard about missiles that are supposed to chose their own targets but I can assure you there are other kinds of smart missiles.


you realize that anti air missiles aren't designed to kill armoured targets right? they rely mostly on kinetic energy and have a tiny warhead. keep in mind that these ships are designed to take anti-air fire on the way down, considering we've never had to engage something that big and armoured with anti-air weapons before, our arsenal would not be very effective and those things tend to come in fleets. shoot one down the imperium has a hundred more.

also what good would shooting the engines do? all that does is force it to land on that spot where it's hovering rather than wherever it was going. it's not like a modern aircraft where taking out the engine (assuming it survived the impact) means it's not generating thrust causing it to lose speed and therefore lift. those dropships don't need to generate lift that way (can't really)


Look a re-entry is a very complicated manoeuvre in reality, and basically impossible to pull of if someone shoot at you. Any countermeasures they may have would be launched at relative speed and thus be torn apart by re-entry as soon as they were launched. In fact a ship that size simple can't pull of an atmospheric entry,even if they could generate the force required to prevent an uncontrolled re-entry it would turn the point they try to land on into a molten lake of fire. Any disturbance would cause it to plummet with an impact of thousands of hydrogen bombs. It's simple mechanics no super engines can change this, you would have to have some way of reducing mass and since you responded to my 'in case of our reality' I'll just point out that's impossible.
As for enough firepower we had enough to nuke every square meter of earth 37 times over by 1981. I think we can bring down a few flying containers. As long as they remain in orbit there's little to nothing we can do but as soon as they commit to a re-entry they're basically sitting ducks.

Face it, warhammer 40k stuff only works in the warhammer 40k universe, that doesn't make it bad but it's not exactly 2001. If you placed this stuff in reality it would not only not work, it would be really really bad even if you had an engineer work a decade to make it work, because the designs don't make sense. A lander that's about as aerodynamic as a brick? When the biggest threat it'll face is re-entry heat? WTH?

bittick
08-12-2013, 19:10
40K stuff doesn't work, and isn't supposed to work. A lot of the designs make about as much sense as the Thundertank.

183059

That's okay. I like the Thundertank. 40K is about fun, not realism. Comparing real world equipment doesn't really work, because real world engineering has all kinds of limitations that cartoon science doesn't. Trying to work out real world weapon statistics is like trying to figure out the acceleration speed of Santa's sleigh. It's generally a waste of time, and at best is highly misleading as to the nature of the subject. Santa's reindeer can't kick a hole through a steel vault despite their apparent leg power given how much propulsion they provide. They fly because they're magic, and that's it. Similarly, 40K technology operates on cartoon science, and no real equations were ever used in the writing of their abilities.

Tim_Ward
08-12-2013, 20:46
Conquering a planet as varied as earth would require a cohesive attack by a variety of specialist regiments in order to cancel out home advantage.

Really? It's not like there's anything actually worth fighting for in, e.g. the antarctica, the amazon rain forest or the gobi desert and even if there were those environments are so tame compared to 40k death worlds that it would hardly merit bringing in specialist troops like Catachans or whatever.

Retrospectus
08-12-2013, 21:57
[QUOTE=TheDungen;7003261
Look a re-entry is a very complicated manoeuvre in reality, and basically impossible to pull of if someone shoot at you. Any countermeasures they may have would be launched at relative speed and thus be torn apart by re-entry as soon as they were launched. In fact a ship that size simple can't pull of an atmospheric entry,even if they could generate the force required to prevent an uncontrolled re-entry it would turn the point they try to land on into a molten lake of fire. Any disturbance would cause it to plummet with an impact of thousands of hydrogen bombs. It's simple mechanics no super engines can change this, you would have to have some way of reducing mass and since you responded to my 'in case of our reality' I'll just point out that's impossible.
As for enough firepower we had enough to nuke every square meter of earth 37 times over by 1981. I think we can bring down a few flying containers. As long as they remain in orbit there's little to nothing we can do but as soon as they commit to a re-entry they're basically sitting ducks.

Face it, warhammer 40k stuff only works in the warhammer 40k universe, that doesn't make it bad but it's not exactly 2001. If you placed this stuff in reality it would not only not work, it would be really really bad even if you had an engineer work a decade to make it work, because the designs don't make sense. A lander that's about as aerodynamic as a brick? When the biggest threat it'll face is re-entry heat? WTH?[/QUOTE]

First rule of universe crossover debates: always assume both sides tech works as described. it simplifies the debate seeing as most sci-fi is impossible. learned that during my days on the frontline of trek vs wars

as for aerodynamics, the older versions are more streamlined but I'm fairly sure they are shielded for re-entry purposes.
then you assume we have anything in our arsenal that can target something that high up, that's why the blackbird was so effective. too high and fast to be shot down. by the time they are low and slow enough for us to shoot at the issue of "plummeting with an impact of thousands of hydrogen bombs" (hyperbolic, but I get what you're saying) is gone and they are now relying on whatever method they use to stay airborne (anti gravity, retro thrusters etc) so shooting the engine at the back won't do a thing.
remember these guys are 40,000 years into our future, who knows what tech they have? the lasgun is far more advanced than anything we have and that's considered to be one of the most simplistic guns in the galaxy.
and on the subject of nukes, firstly nukes are ground attack weapons. it would require an extensive refitting to render them capable of hitting aerial targets like that. second, remember the imperium has complete air and space superiority here, any nuclear weapon launched from the ground would be tracked and intercepted before it got to it's target (any nuke small enough not to be tracked would not have the range to strike a sub-orbital lander) and the launch site obliterated. any launched from aircraft would have the aircraft shot down before it got anywhere (assuming you could launch it without an airfield of course). and finally, the dropships come in fleets of dozens or hundreds, hardly "a few". assuming you can nuke them, after the first drop they'll spread out so you'll need more nukes. by the time you're done you have irradiated your atmosphere beyond repair and killed your population. who in their right mind would use nukes like that?

TheDungen
08-12-2013, 23:52
Shields doesn't work in reality, I've already been over that energy doesn't work like that.
At the point when they are lower they won't be slower but have picked up more speed.
Also only jet and propeller propulsion has a roof, rocket engines does not.
Antigrav doesn't exist, retro thrusters then hit those and again watch it hit the ground and be destroyed on impact.
and even if they could land we have so many damn nukes we could turn the area outside those landers to a radioactive hotzone.
as for launch sites that's what nuclear subs are for.
And again I said in my initial statement if earth was moved to the warhammer 40k universe they'd kick our ass but if the imperium showed up with their stuff in our universe they'd just malfunction since real life science would cause them to no longer work. Sorry but 28.000 years of development has nothing to do with it (especially since they pushed the reset button a fair few times on the way) warhammer 40k doesn't make sense from a real life technological standpoint. In fact warhammer 40k seems to pride itself in the least likely solutions, and that ok cause it's a cool setting but don't try to justify their technology, cause their warp is still more likely than their vehicles.

=Angel=
09-12-2013, 00:43
That's like saying if Harry Potter was moved to our universe you'd beat him because magic isn't real.

Think a little, man.

bittick
09-12-2013, 01:16
First rule of universe crossover debates: always assume both sides tech works as described. it simplifies the debate seeing as most sci-fi is impossible. learned that during my days on the frontline of trek vs wars

as for aerodynamics, the older versions are more streamlined but I'm fairly sure they are shielded for re-entry purposes.
then you assume we have anything in our arsenal that can target something that high up, that's why the blackbird was so effective. too high and fast to be shot down. by the time they are low and slow enough for us to shoot at the issue of "plummeting with an impact of thousands of hydrogen bombs" (hyperbolic, but I get what you're saying) is gone and they are now relying on whatever method they use to stay airborne (anti gravity, retro thrusters etc) so shooting the engine at the back won't do a thing.
remember these guys are 40,000 years into our future, who knows what tech they have? the lasgun is far more advanced than anything we have and that's considered to be one of the most simplistic guns in the galaxy.
and on the subject of nukes, firstly nukes are ground attack weapons. it would require an extensive refitting to render them capable of hitting aerial targets like that. second, remember the imperium has complete air and space superiority here, any nuclear weapon launched from the ground would be tracked and intercepted before it got to it's target (any nuke small enough not to be tracked would not have the range to strike a sub-orbital lander) and the launch site obliterated. any launched from aircraft would have the aircraft shot down before it got anywhere (assuming you could launch it without an airfield of course). and finally, the dropships come in fleets of dozens or hundreds, hardly "a few". assuming you can nuke them, after the first drop they'll spread out so you'll need more nukes. by the time you're done you have irradiated your atmosphere beyond repair and killed your population. who in their right mind would use nukes like that?

The morlocks from HG Wells' The Time Machine were 760,000 years in the future of the Imperium. They had stone age technology. Despite the lasgun being advanced, it's basically just an assault rifle. It's sci-fi tech, but it's functionally equivalent to present day tech. In some cases the Imperium has crazy advanced technology, like Titans and teleporters. In other cases it's laughably primitive.

That's not just argument. That's the Imperium's thing. It's a part of their makeup, their theme. This isn't the United Federation of Planets. This is the Imperium of Man, they still write stuff on scrolls. They use candles to read. They have troops mounted on horseback. Anachronistic warfare is who they are. Some of their technology would outclass us totally. Some of it would fall apart.

You lay out the standard "orbital bombardment" argument that gets used again and again. And that's okay I guess, but it's not interesting. Both sides have the ability to blow up the planet to the point where no one wants it anymore. Meh.

Orthodox
09-12-2013, 05:22
Yeah, lasguns, that is an important question.

The question was what number of troops can conquer a planet that has as many troops as earth.

Well, no rogue Imperial planet has as many troops as earth does, because all the militaries on earth exist for fighting each other. Any large country in east asia has enough military power to occupy its own territory, fight at least one major war without depleting its military, and occupy/pacify large chunks of its neighbors. There are two halves of the Korean peninsula each with big enough militaries to beat the other half and come out a nominally functioning whole country. On culturally/politically consolidatd planets in 40k, this is not a problem.

Except that sometimes it is and a third of the planet is on the side of one invader or the other.

Well, Earth does have all the soldiers that it does. However, since all of the militaries in East Asia are in East Asia, and all of the militaries in South America are in South America, they do not mean anything when the Cadians take over North America or Africa. Not a single one of the military powerhouses in East Asia are about to fight a war in North America if there aren't space ships involved. They do not have expeditionary militaries.

Yeah, planets have big armies. It is because they have to fight over entire planets. Space invaders don't. The Imperium can invade whatever country they want, and once there is an Imperial North America, fifty years of world war doesn't make a difference to the Adeptus Terra.

Polaria
09-12-2013, 07:00
In the case of Earth the best tactic Imperium could ever employ would be to bid the various superpowers against each other for the right to rule over Earth in the name of Imperium. Then, after receiving the best possible offer from one nation they would arm that nation with Imperial technology and give them full orbital dominance via the support from Imperial Navy. I'm pretty sure that after Imperium shifted all its supports to one nation many, maybe even most, earthly nations would just suck it up and join the winning side without much of fight. Yes, I'm sure some earthly nations would still try to fight, but in the end they would have no chance of winning.

Plague Lord
09-12-2013, 08:34
Really? It's not like there's anything actually worth fighting for in, e.g. the antarctica, the amazon rain forest or the gobi desert and even if there were those environments are so tame compared to 40k death worlds that it would hardly merit bringing in specialist troops like Catachans or whatever.

Well actually you are wrong. When winter hits here in poland it hits hard. -20 degrees celsius and that's europe we are talking about. Temp in russia can go down to -40degrees. How do you think cadians would handle that? Without proper winter war equipment, warm boots, winter fuel and so on they will freeze to death. They won't know our climate. In some parts of the US or Europe it can from 30 celsius to -20 depending on the season time of year. The funny thing in the 40k universe is that it's assumed that the whole universe has the same bacterial and viral ecosystem. Tbh if cadians were to land on earth they would die from our bacteria and possibly any sickness they would aquire.

Nazguire
09-12-2013, 09:30
Well actually you are wrong. When winter hits here in poland it hits hard. -20 degrees celsius and that's europe we are talking about. Temp in russia can go down to -40degrees. How do you think cadians would handle that? Without proper winter war equipment, warm boots, winter fuel and so on they will freeze to death. They won't know our climate. In some parts of the US or Europe it can from 30 celsius to -20 depending on the season time of year. The funny thing in the 40k universe is that it's assumed that the whole universe has the same bacterial and viral ecosystem. Tbh if cadians were to land on earth they would die from our bacteria and possibly any sickness they would aquire.

I'd daresay that the medical technology in the Imperium is sufficiently advanced enough that viruses on Earth wouldn't be too hard to work out vaccines and immunisations to. The general spread of advanced technology across the population in the Imperium isn't anywhere near equal, but it still is advanced and their genetic and medical advances far, far, far outstrip our own.

Also in regards to climate, I doubt that it would take more than one scan of the Earth, and they'd have all the climatological information that they couple possibly need initially. The Imperium also has powerful computers, and other things that would be essential for any planetary invasion, not just one on Earth.

MajorNese
09-12-2013, 11:26
Well actually you are wrong. When winter hits here in poland it hits hard. -20 degrees celsius and that's europe we are talking about. Temp in russia can go down to -40degrees. How do you think cadians would handle that? Without proper winter war equipment, warm boots, winter fuel and so on they will freeze to death.
Well, in Eisenhorn, it is described how Cadian winter is a rough equivalent of what you are describing.
The Cadians just continue their full training battles in that weather, don't even use heaters in their cities, so conquering Earth would still work.

Still, even without the whole landing stuff, the regiment numbers still don't add up.
Each soldier is still a human - one with a shiny laser gun and maybe better armor vest than currently used, but that won't do much difference.
Any hit with current weaponry could rip an arterie or something similarly fatal (like current SAPI carriers, flak vests only protect vital torso organs), and the better rifle still needs to be aimed (exposing the firer) like any other rifle.

Still, conquering Earth would be relatively easy, compared to Chaos-held planets.
Regular humans care for their own safety, and won't necessarily fight forces they don't need to fight in order to survive.
Chaos cultists, or genestealer hybrid armies (to stay in regular societies), are batshit insane and won't care, so they would overwhelm them simply with greater numbers (which is, by fluff, the Guard's game).
Imagine even (f.e.) every 5th person wielding a gun, the rest improvising something ranging from pitchforks to explosives (IEDs, suicide bombers) or flamers, that would be an insanely powerful army.
"Necropolis" had this principle, with only one hive falling to chaos, and it proved extremely effective.
To truly conquer such a planet, they would need to kill every single person, and the numbers don't add up in any way.

As the imperium has enough manpower to throw into the grinder, simply increasing the numbers (as someone already stated) would make it work in reality.
Manufacturing lasguns and training soldiers in an "industrial" scale would be easy for the imperium, then it would be easy to concentrate forces to overwhelm a certain area (planet/sector), pacify it, and leave it when they can "produce" their own PDF.

Retrospectus
09-12-2013, 18:39
Shields doesn't work in reality, I've already been over that energy doesn't work like that.
At the point when they are lower they won't be slower but have picked up more speed.
Also only jet and propeller propulsion has a roof, rocket engines does not.
Antigrav doesn't exist, retro thrusters then hit those and again watch it hit the ground and be destroyed on impact.
and even if they could land we have so many damn nukes we could turn the area outside those landers to a radioactive hotzone.
as for launch sites that's what nuclear subs are for.
And again I said in my initial statement if earth was moved to the warhammer 40k universe they'd kick our ass but if the imperium showed up with their stuff in our universe they'd just malfunction since real life science would cause them to no longer work. Sorry but 28.000 years of development has nothing to do with it (especially since they pushed the reset button a fair few times on the way) warhammer 40k doesn't make sense from a real life technological standpoint. In fact warhammer 40k seems to pride itself in the least likely solutions, and that ok cause it's a cool setting but don't try to justify their technology, cause their warp is still more likely than their vehicles.

Did you entirely miss the part about the first rule of crossover debates? deciding that one side cannot use their equipment for whatever reason entirely defeats the purpose of this discussion. Refer to that harry potter example given by angel. any sci-fi or fantasy universe would lose against modern earth because most of their equipment wouldn't work. it's like saying if starfleet tried to conquer earth and just stopping the debate by pointing out that most of their technology is impossible.
and once again; who wouuld nuke their own planet into oblivion to stop an invasion? that's like responding to 9/11 by leveling the east coast of america (and canada to be sure)


The morlocks from HG Wells' The Time Machine were 760,000 years in the future of the Imperium. They had stone age technology. Despite the lasgun being advanced, it's basically just an assault rifle. It's sci-fi tech, but it's functionally equivalent to present day tech. In some cases the Imperium has crazy advanced technology, like Titans and teleporters. In other cases it's laughably primitive.

That's not just argument. That's the Imperium's thing. It's a part of their makeup, their theme. This isn't the United Federation of Planets. This is the Imperium of Man, they still write stuff on scrolls. They use candles to read. They have troops mounted on horseback. Anachronistic warfare is who they are. Some of their technology would outclass us totally. Some of it would fall apart.

You lay out the standard "orbital bombardment" argument that gets used again and again. And that's okay I guess, but it's not interesting. Both sides have the ability to blow up the planet to the point where no one wants it anymore. Meh.



I won't argue that the imperium is anachronistic (pretty much the reason I love it) but some technologies are far beyond the scope of modern science. plasma guns for instance. The lasgun may have the outward appearance of a basic assault rifle but the underlying tech is bafflingly advanced. it has the power to fire a shot capable of blowing off limbs and even killing space marines (en-masse of course) so it already has more power than most modern rifles.it can do this at full auto which indicates advanced metallurgy techniques ( modern materials would warp if you passed that much energy through them repeatedly) and most importantly the power supply for this is a few inches square and can be recharged quickly and with astounding ease. that kind of technology is so far beyond ours we can't even fathom how it works.

as for orbital bombardment, I know it gets brought up a lot but it is such a major factor you can't ignore it. I'm not talking about leveling cities here. I'm talking about being able to find a target (airfield or hidden base) and being able to shoot at it within minutes with total impunity. think of it as an airstrike you can use where ever and whenever you want that can never be intercepted. any modern general would cream his pants to get one of those

bittick
09-12-2013, 23:21
I won't argue that the imperium is anachronistic (pretty much the reason I love it) but some technologies are far beyond the scope of modern science. plasma guns for instance. The lasgun may have the outward appearance of a basic assault rifle but the underlying tech is bafflingly advanced. it has the power to fire a shot capable of blowing off limbs and even killing space marines (en-masse of course) so it already has more power than most modern rifles.it can do this at full auto which indicates advanced metallurgy techniques ( modern materials would warp if you passed that much energy through them repeatedly) and most importantly the power supply for this is a few inches square and can be recharged quickly and with astounding ease. that kind of technology is so far beyond ours we can't even fathom how it works.

as for orbital bombardment, I know it gets brought up a lot but it is such a major factor you can't ignore it. I'm not talking about leveling cities here. I'm talking about being able to find a target (airfield or hidden base) and being able to shoot at it within minutes with total impunity. think of it as an airstrike you can use where ever and whenever you want that can never be intercepted. any modern general would cream his pants to get one of those

The lasgun is about AK-47 power level. Yeah it would really suck to get shot by, but the limb-blowing-off capabilities are a bit exaggerated. That's not the normal outcome from a lasgun shot. I know they mentioned it in a novel somewhere, but we've got decades of books indicating that a lasgun is a rough equivalent to a modern assault rifle in regards to power, accuracy, rate of fire, etc.

Yeah they have some really cool stuff. Plasma guns are cool, but what are you going to shoot them at? It will probably kill a Humvee pretty good, but it's overkill as far as shooting it at a person.

Whether the Imperium can conquer Earth is all in the setup. Did modern Earth get sucked into a wormhole and pop out in the 41st millennium? If so then we're probably pretty screwed. They have way more people than us. Did a standard Imperial invasion force accidentally travel tens of thousands of years into the past? That's a whole different story.

TheDungen
09-12-2013, 23:58
Did you entirely miss the part about the first rule of crossover debates? deciding that one side cannot use their equipment for whatever reason entirely defeats the purpose of this discussion. Refer to that harry potter example given by angel. any sci-fi or fantasy universe would lose against modern earth because most of their equipment wouldn't work. it's like saying if starfleet tried to conquer earth and just stopping the debate by pointing out that most of their technology is impossible.
and once again; who wouuld nuke their own planet into oblivion to stop an invasion? that's like responding to 9/11 by leveling the east coast of america (and canada to be sure)




Actually nothing starfleet uses is proven impossible, at least not in the context which it is used (shields for an example are only used in vacuum). Unless you apply the rules of a universe a crossover debate only becomes who has written the most over the top stuff. It's like discussing superheroes and someone bring up flash can break reality because he's so fast or that thor can destroy planets with his hammer. Or the death star or planet destroyer actually blowing up planets (powerlevel over 5000 anyone?).
What makes a faction good in a crossover is it's ability to apply it's strengths in another universe. By falling into a category of common denominators (or close approximations of these), usually by being tangential to reality (our most common frame of reference).

for an example a 2001 startrek crossover would work very well, everything that works in one more or less works in the other, both being hard sci-fi. Stargate would also work fairly well with startrek, since they share many of the same in-universe mechanics even when they step away from proven science (warpspeed, subspace, wormholes, antimatter).

Polaria
10-12-2013, 05:27
Actually nothing starfleet uses is proven impossible, at least not in the context which it is used (shields for an example are only used in vacuum). Unless you apply the rules of a universe a crossover debate only becomes who has written the most over the top stuff. It's like discussing superheroes and someone bring up flash can break reality because he's so fast or that thor can destroy planets with his hammer. Or the death star or planet destroyer actually blowing up planets (powerlevel over 5000 anyone?).
What makes a faction good in a crossover is it's ability to apply it's strengths in another universe. By falling into a category of common denominators (or close approximations of these), usually by being tangential to reality (our most common frame of reference).


So basically what you are saying is that Starfleet from Star Trek universe would lose all crossovers because a good part of their crew can't exist within hard-core sci-fi parameters?

Retrospectus
10-12-2013, 16:10
Actually nothing starfleet uses is proven impossible, at least not in the context which it is used (shields for an example are only used in vacuum).

ignoring the countless times shields used in atmosphere. during the episode when voyager is negotiating a treaty between the Kazon a Kazon shuttle attacks the meeting. voyager shoots at it and the torpedoes are deflected by the shields.
deep space 9: the one where martok (I think, the klingons look the same to me) leads a squadron of Birds of Prey to attack a dominion outpost (on the surface of a planet) his ship gets shot repeatedly saved only by his shields.
enterprise: archer and co. find a cloaked suliban ship hiding just over the surface of a planet. they shoot it and their first volley is blocked by shields
Enterprise again: the one where phloxx cures some klingon plague, a klingon warship starts bombarding the colony he's on. he specifically asks how long the shields will last (not long)
TNG: the episode where they find a weapons testing planet (where a hologram sells drones to customers by releasing ever more powerful versions eventually culminating in drones strong enough to threaten the enterprise) they fly into the atmosphere to shake off a drone and their shields visibly flare up

a small fraction of examples of shields working in atmosphere which you said is impossible.
as for technology not being impossible
warp drive: relies on creating a subspace bubble (subspace doesn't exist) and bending space without traveling a relativistic speeds (unless you're a black hole you can't bend space like that)
shields: see above
phasers: use a made-up form of energy (nadion beams if I remember correctly) and can vapourise a man without releasing a catastrophic amount of energy (entirely impossible)
anti gravity: used pretty much whenever a ship need to land (no visible jets to indicate retro thrusters) which you have declared impossible
gravity plating: please
transporters: there were experiments into this, it only works on sub atomic particles. impossible for anything bigger and you need a reciever at the other end
every time they use the word "neutrons" or "quantum" to solve a problem a physicist cries
treating everything as having a frequency, clearly the writers don't understand what that word means
every time someone "evolves" by spontaneously turning into a being of pure energy a biologist cries. not to mention the amount of times we see ghosts or someone gets possesed
all the telepathic races
most of the races looking human

star trek is soft sci-fi dressed up in fancy technobabble. stargate is far harder and so is babylon 5. even 40k stays more consistent (if not as accurate).

kafrique
10-12-2013, 19:28
Note that lasguns blowing off limbs is neither unfeasible nor impressive. Muskets blew off limbs. Modern rifles produce cleaner wounds by design.

Also, anyone who's saying the Imperium could just occupy some capitals and call it a day need to look at real wars of conquest in the modern age. You simply must occupy the country and defeat its armies if you want to enforce your terms. Using Iraq as an example is laughable because that's exactly what would happen if some space invaders rolled up, blew a few cities apart, left a puppet government, and rolled out ten years later. Unceasing civil war and guerilla insurgency, and a reversion to the old ways as soon as the occupiers left.

Sure, you could just blow the place up, but if you want to actually occupy and exploit you need the manpower to physically occupy it and destroy its armies. On a planetary scale imagine fighting WW2. You'd need an invasion force larger in scale than all of the Allied armies combined.

Look at it another way. The Nazis failed to occupy most (not even all) of continental Europe, and they had 12ish million men. No freaking way you can occupy a PLANET, (assuming earthlike population and Imperiumesque tech), with hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of thousands are what you need to fight a BATTLE on the 40k scale.

Now, plenty of 40k planets are much less densely populated. Those would be whole different story, not really comparable to anything in the modern era.

Retrospectus
10-12-2013, 21:36
well once you take the major population centres you install a governor and tell him to deal with it on pain of death. that's how we roll :)

=Angel=
10-12-2013, 22:08
Note that lasguns blowing off limbs is neither unfeasible nor impressive. Muskets blew off limbs. Modern rifles produce cleaner wounds by design.

Muskets blew off limbs because they delivered a lot of force to a single area. Muskets were a powerful weapon- their problem was rate of fire.
Modern weapons pierce by design, yes and are more accurate.

Las weapons deliver thermal energy to the target not piercing bullets, in quantity sufficient to disable a man through thermic shock if not kill him outrig
ht and at a rate of fire comparable to a fully automatic battle rifle.

The weapons of the 41st millennium don't involve 20th century thinking about 'wound, and you'll place a greater drain on their resources than a kill'

They just take you out of action.



Now, plenty of 40k planets are much less densely populated. Those would be whole different story, not really comparable to anything in the modern era.
Ok, I get where you're coming from with the ww2 references.
But 40k factions routinely invade and subdue hive worlds with many times the population of our planet that have one nominal world government.

How?

I imagine it would have something to do with cities not being self sustaining. Unlike the Germans in ww2 they don't need to hold every patch of dirt on the surface to effectively control it.

If they stop food getting into, say NewYork(common target for invasion)then the citizenry would likely tear down the statue of liberty and erect a statue of the God Emperor soon enough, especially when informed that their government is a smoking crater and their armed forces are twisted wreckage.

Think Dark knight rises Gotham, worldwide, bowing before their new overlords.

Sai-Lauren
11-12-2013, 20:52
Without reading the entire thread:

What's your time frame? Years, or centuries?
Why are you looking to take the planet over? What do you want from it? Do you care about the population for the future, or do you just want the resources, or are you simply after the strategic location?

If you've got the time and you want the population, you'll never have to have anyone lift a gun, that's what people like the Diplomats, Ordo Dialogus, Imperial Intelligence, even the Officio Sabatroum and Callidus assassins are for, taking decades, even centuries to work behind the scenes and ready the population for a peaceful entry into the Imperium.

Otherwise, first option is to identify a planetary centre of government (for Earth, that would likely be the UN), enter standard orbit and drop a shuttle with the captain and a bodyguard to explain what's what. If it starts getting heated, an orbital shot into the nearest ocean would get a lot of attention.

If it absolutely has to get into conflict, but you still want the population, then it would really depend on how well trained and organised the native forces are - again, looking at Earth, militaries have been organised for decades based around the idea of having to operate in the event of nuclear strikes that would almost certainly incapacitate the leadership, so while a decapitation strike might work initially and require relatively few military resources initially, the occupying forces would have potentially years of guerilla fighting to deal with, which would be a constant drain.

If it's straight genocide, but the situation says you can't just blast the planet from orbit, then you're probably looking at 6-10 times the military forces.

Mr Carrot
11-12-2013, 23:46
I agree with Sai but I think it's worth pointing out the key fact of imperial governance.

The governer rarely 'runs' a developed imperial world - from the literature they trend to be the ultimate arbitor of Imperial Authority, but their primary role is in maintaining the tithe, planetary security from external threats and maintaining a watch for heresy and mutation and aid the setting up of independent Imperial institutions (Arbites and Adeptus Ministorum).

The Imperium could technically walk up, wave at the UN and say "right guys we're basically going to put this guy in a space station above you and he's going to make sure you pay up 10% of the stuff you're meant to every 10 years, and just carry on".

it's feesable that nothing much would change for hundreds of years, with the politics continuing on as they do today (fractious nation states) until the Ad Mech rocked up to **** everything up on the tech side and ruin the global economy.

Retrospectus
12-12-2013, 14:08
I think it was mentioned in the guard codex that so long as the tithe was paid the planets were allowed to run themselves however they wish. so long as they don't attract the attention of the arbites or inquisition the imperium doesn't care

=Angel=
12-12-2013, 21:49
Magus Fanschitsenhitter of the Mechanicus: Tell me more about this 'Siri'
Ralph Doomsusallski: well it's basically a device in my machine that does whatever I want it to.
MF: You mean whatever you implore it to?
RD: ha ha no. It's basically like a robot slave. Android users have a similar search functio..
MF: *withdraws mechadendrite from Ralph's throat. Opens commlink*
Initiate planetary cleansing! Androids and forbidden technology detected!

bittick
13-12-2013, 01:57
If the admech tried to tap into the Internet they'd be overloaded with spam and viruses very quickly. They'd walk around and bump into things as pop-ups appeared and blocked their vision.

Plus, you know, all the porn.

"We'll initiate planetary invasion later. I'm busy now."

Retrospectus
13-12-2013, 10:26
Puritan Inquisitor: I'm sorry, There's HOW much porn?
*opens commlink*
Commence bombardment, this planet is clearly a giant slaaneshi cult

=Angel=
13-12-2013, 15:05
Imagine they found all our memes and took them seriously. You'd have the Thorians trying to save Chuck Norris from the Malleus, who'd think he was a manifestation of the Emperor's will/daemonhost respectively.

TheDungen
13-12-2013, 16:08
So basically what you are saying is that Starfleet from Star Trek universe would lose all crossovers because a good part of their crew can't exist within hard-core sci-fi parameters?

Can't? It seems very unlikely that we are the only life in the galaxy so why couldn't they exist (you're referring to the idea that it's unlikely that we'll encounter other humanoid life forms in space? well until we encounter any life forms we really can't say what's likely and not likely, only make qualified guesses). also we said we brought them to our universe so they would keep existing, the 40k vehicles would also exist just cease to function. Now if you can show me how Spock's biology can't work in reality then I'd be glad to consider the point.


ignoring the countless times shields used in atmosphere. during the episode when voyager is negotiating a treaty between the Kazon a Kazon shuttle attacks the meeting. voyager shoots at it and the torpedoes are deflected by the shields.
deep space 9: the one where martok (I think, the klingons look the same to me) leads a squadron of Birds of Prey to attack a dominion outpost (on the surface of a planet) his ship gets shot repeatedly saved only by his shields.
enterprise: archer and co. find a cloaked suliban ship hiding just over the surface of a planet. they shoot it and their first volley is blocked by shields
Enterprise again: the one where phloxx cures some klingon plague, a klingon warship starts bombarding the colony he's on. he specifically asks how long the shields will last (not long)
TNG: the episode where they find a weapons testing planet (where a hologram sells drones to customers by releasing ever more powerful versions eventually culminating in drones strong enough to threaten the enterprise) they fly into the atmosphere to shake off a drone and their shields visibly flare up

a small fraction of examples of shields working in atmosphere which you said is impossible.
as for technology not being impossible
warp drive: relies on creating a subspace bubble (subspace doesn't exist) and bending space without traveling a relativistic speeds (unless you're a black hole you can't bend space like that)
shields: see above
phasers: use a made-up form of energy (nadion beams if I remember correctly) and can vapourise a man without releasing a catastrophic amount of energy (entirely impossible)
anti gravity: used pretty much whenever a ship need to land (no visible jets to indicate retro thrusters) which you have declared impossible
gravity plating: please
transporters: there were experiments into this, it only works on sub atomic particles. impossible for anything bigger and you need a reciever at the other end
every time they use the word "neutrons" or "quantum" to solve a problem a physicist cries
treating everything as having a frequency, clearly the writers don't understand what that word means
every time someone "evolves" by spontaneously turning into a being of pure energy a biologist cries. not to mention the amount of times we see ghosts or someone gets possesed
all the telepathichey thr races
most of the races looking human

star trek is soft sci-fi dressed up in fancy technobabble. stargate is far harder and so is babylon 5. even 40k stays more consistent (if not as accurate).


Sorry I should have specified ToS, in ToS there are no shields in atmosphere. And yeah a lot of the technology is highly unlikely but nothing we can prove won't work, unlike the simple mechanics needed to debunk the 40k vehicles.

stargate is harder until naquadah shows up, there are no stable elements unknown to man, the very way the atom is made up prevents it. And without that element the whole setting crumbles. Now it's easily salvagable by saying it's a compund not an element though.

=Angel=
14-12-2013, 10:05
Can't? It seems very unlikely that we are the only life in the galaxy so why couldn't they exist (you're referring to the idea that it's unlikely that we'll encounter other humanoid life forms in space? well until we encounter any life forms we really can't say what's likely and not likely, only make qualified guesses). also we said we brought them to our universe so they would keep existing, the 40k vehicles would also exist just cease to function. Now if you can show me how Spock's biology can't work in reality then I'd be glad to consider the point.
If you can show me how a magic hell beyond our reality is not responsible for all our unexplained phenomena then we΄ll all concede that Trek isnt just science fantasy, and that dilithium crystals arent just magic rocks with a science name.
All elements of magic in fantasy and tech in Scifi exist to further the plot and tell stories. A wizard did it is no less valid than an engineer did it by bouncing a graviton paticle field off the main deflector dish.







Sorry I should have specified ToS, in ToS there are no shields in atmosphere. And yeah a lot of the technology is highly unlikely but nothing we can prove won't work, unlike the simple mechanics needed to debunk the 40k vehicles.

stargate is harder until naquadah shows up, there are no stable elements unknown to man, the very way the atom is made up prevents it. And without that element the whole setting crumbles. Now it's easily salvagable by saying it's a compund not an element though.

Whereas 40k tech in unexplained. It works for science reasons that are barely understood by the people who build them. Those blocky jets probably incorporate antigrav fields or other stuff to make them fly- because they observably work, and physics doesnt work differently in 40k, except where the warp is concerned.
The fact that none of this is explained to us shouldnt matter. We are presented with thunderhawks that fly, in a setting where grav guns and daemons exist.
If we΄re doing a 40k crossover then we assume daemons exist (what did you think Q was?) along with all the other made up stuff and preexisting stuff in the other setting, in this case our reality.

Retrospectus
14-12-2013, 10:24
Sorry I should have specified ToS, in ToS there are no shields in atmosphere. And yeah a lot of the technology is highly unlikely but nothing we can prove won't work, unlike the simple mechanics needed to debunk the 40k vehicles.


You don't get to discard 20 years of canon to support your point. subsequent series show shields working in atmosphere, therefore they work in TOS even if it was never demonstrated.
as I said before, most trek technology is as impossible as 40k tech (shields, warp drive, artificial gravity, anti-gravity etc) they had to invent a magic dimension (subspace) in order to make their technologies work, hell, there's even things living in subspace, it's essentially a less hostile Warp.

as for encountering humanoid lifeforms, not impossible but ask any evolutionary biologist and they'll tell you the odds of encountering even one humanoid alien species is astronomically small. if you reversed time to the beginning of life on earth odds are massively against humans coming up again. don't forget that trek writers seem to think different species can interbreed with next to no problems (odds have just gone from astronomical to "we need to invent a new number"). and of course you can eliminate any of the telepathic races as there is no scientific support for phsychic powers

In conclusion, star trek is just as fanciful as 40k, they just dress it up in more pseudoscience

madprophet
14-12-2013, 13:29
But two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were enough for them to surrender unconditionally. An Imperial fleet has thousand times the firepower.
For a hive world, I am sure this is a good analogy. Most worlds aren't so densely populated.

An agriworld may only have a few million people on it with no civilian arms permitted. A couple of infantry regiments backed with some armor and air support take the communications and supply centers and the world capitulates.

A world like modern earth, nuke London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Washington, Tokyo, Beijing, Jersualem, Mecca and Rome - land a few regiments and broadcast that unless they surrender to the glorious armies of the god-emperor, the planet will be rendered uninhabitable - the remaining governments will surrender

Bad monkey
14-12-2013, 15:54
Ok I'll play.

I would go for the long game. Seed the population with agitators against the current regime.

Operate a couple of black flag operations, attacking civilian spots under the guise of the PDF or state forces.

Basically turn the population against the ruling elite by any means. Or at least trigger some form of popular uprising.

I would the send in my armies to ride in to the rescue and be greeted as liberators.

This would also require some form of ongoing diplomacy, in order to keep the planets lords off the sent.

The above is assuming that it is a human world. If it was an alien planet , a chapter or 2 of space marines with a couple of ig regs to back it up.

Iverald
14-12-2013, 17:35
A world like modern earth, nuke London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Washington, Tokyo, Beijing, Jersualem, Mecca and Rome - land a few regiments and broadcast that unless they surrender to the glorious armies of the god-emperor, the planet will be rendered uninhabitable - the remaining governments will surrender


If the invaders, as per OP wishes are unwilling/unable to use orbital bombardment, why not land a few of those few-hundred-metre-long IG landers in the middle of these cities, preferably on top of the most decorative/prominent buildings? Not a single shot fired. With orbital supremacy they wouldn't even know what is going on until it's too late.

Heck, if someone landed on my parliament building, my countrypeople would be so elated, they would accede to the IoM in an eyeblink. :p

Polaria
14-12-2013, 18:10
Can't? It seems very unlikely that we are the only life in the galaxy so why couldn't they exist (you're referring to the idea that it's unlikely that we'll encounter other humanoid life forms in space? well until we encounter any life forms we really can't say what's likely and not likely, only make qualified guesses). also we said we brought them to our universe so they would keep existing, the 40k vehicles would also exist just cease to function. Now if you can show me how Spock's biology can't work in reality then I'd be glad to consider the point.

...

I was actually thinking of another thing but since you brought it up, lets start with Spock: Firstly, even though there might be life somewhere in the galaxy the chance of that life being humanoid, outwardly similar to humans and living in our own star system (like Vulcans supposedly are) is zero. Thus Spock cannot exist. However, if we forget about that little thing there is still the biology... Supposedly Vulcans and Romulans are faster and stronger than similar humans and have copper based blood. Sorry. Thats where it finally goes right out of window. You see we DO have animals with copper based blood right here on earth and thus we DO actually know how it works. Hemocyanin (copper based equivalent of hemoglobin) has been demonstrated to be less efficient than hemoglobin for carrying oxygen and thus an oxygen-based hemocyanin metabolism creature cannot be stronger and faster than human of similar muscle mass. Basic chemistry and physics really.

However, the thing I was actually referring to was the Star Trek panimmunity-thingy which supposedly makes the star fleet personnel immune to most diseases. Well, we pretty much know that sort of panimmunity is impossible and when it mystically stops working when it comes to contact with "real world" then the star fleet guys have no immunity to anything anymore. Their immune system, being supported By handwavium science, having never actually done anything, can't cope with anything and they would simply all get instantly sick and die off.


but nothing we can prove won't work, unlike the simple mechanics needed to debunk the 40k vehicles.

As if basic physics wouldn't debunk phasers in less than a microsecond...

Retrospectus
14-12-2013, 20:38
y'know, I knew there was a reason spock's green blood was unrealistic but I couldn't remember what it was so I left it out of my reply. good thing someone was able to articulate it

Tamuz
15-12-2013, 12:01
OK, we need to make a number of assumptions in order to consider this.
Firstly, the effect of Orbital firepower (which is variously ignored or considered to be so overwhelming as to be an auto-win). The conditions for this scenario set out by the OP preclude orbital firepower as an Auto-win, and the Nature of the 40k universe suggests that it is not so overwhelming in-universe as to negate the importance of ground troops. My own opinion on Orbital firepower is that it essentially constitutes a form of long ranged artillery – something that is an important addition to a forces effectiveness but which has been shown to be insufficient to win a war on its own (shielding, bunkers, dispersed formations, camouflage, etc all reduce the effectiveness of such artillery strikes).
Secondly, the defending force can probably be assumed to be entrenched in defensive positions. This represents a combination of prepared defences, planned killing zones, pre-coordinated responses, knowledge of the local terrain and such as well as literal fortifications. If the defending force does not have this level of preparation then things are potentially much better for the attacker. It is important to note that the defender will not need to cover the whole planet with his defences, but only areas of strategic significance (more on this later). It is generally considered that in order to take a defended position, an attacker needs an advantage of at least 3:1 and while rough, I will consider this to be true for the purposes of this analysis.
Thirdly the ability of an attacker to dictate where he lands troops and coordinates his attack is an important advantage and opens up two possible scenarios. This is used by some as a justification to assume that the orbital attacker has nigh unlimited mobility, but importantly this mobility only lasts for deployment of his troops – once engaged the attackers forces are limited in their mobility (possibly more so than defending forces which may have infrastructure in place to facilitate mobility).
In the worst case scenario then, the attacker will simply land and engage all defending forces equally and thus require at least 3 times the total strength of the defensive garrison in order to be successful.
It has been pointed out that the attacker has a potential advantage over the defender in that he does not need to take every strategic location in order to win the war, but may win by taking a few key locations. The usual argument is that the attacker can take these locations, ignore everywhere else and win the war. Because the attacker would only need to gain a 3:1 advantage in these key locations, it would be possible to take the planet with a much smaller force than that being used for defense.
For example, if the defenders were spread evenly across all strategic locations but the attacker only needed to take 15% of those locations then he could obtain a 3:1 advantage in those key locations with a force numbering only half that of the total defensive garrison.
There are caveats to the success of such a plan however. The most important is that the battle must be over before the defender can mobilise the rest of his forces to counter attack (this includes landing, getting in position, taking the objectives, and reaping their benefit). This is important because it limits the kind of objectives that would be useful targets for this kind of attack – the benefits must be immediate (for instance the heads of state in a highly centralised society that would collapse without them, or power generators which can be irreversible destroyed) anything that needs to be held long enough for the enemy to mobilise in response (for instance taking food supplys in order to starve the enemy into submission) is essentially fighting the whole enemy force and so no better than the worst case assault outlined above (requiring 3 times the garrison for success). This is why the immediate defences of a given location will probably be intended to delay and extend the battle long enough to mount a counter attack rather than stop the attack outright. It also means the targets for this type of attack are exceedingly limited.
The second problem with this type of plan is that if there are locations that are vulnerable to this kind of assault, then the enemy will likely be aware of this as well and so they will be defended with a disproportionately high proportion of the defenders garrison, probably delaying the assault long enough to mobilise reserves. Interestingly this means that to pull off such an attack you need two things. A) targets suitable for such an attack but that the defenders do not consider vulnerable. B) forces fast and hard hitting enough to take the objective before the enemy can mobilise. Ie. this is exactly the conditions in which space marines could potentially take a planet against a much larger force.
The first problem is the biggest however – you need to take (and benefit from) your objectives before the enemy can mobilise his forces to counter your attack. This means that delaying and pinning his garrison as a whole in place is vitally important. Bombardments and such may help to slow mobilisation somewhat, but to ensure they are pinned in place a diversionary attack is necessary against each garrison force. These attacks can be minimal (they are not intended to succeed) but do need to be strong enough to pin the enemy in place. An accepted ratio for such diversionary attacks would be about 6:5.
The proportion of the defensive garrison that will need to be taken in order to establish dominance (and eventual victory) will vary according to the planet and the nature of the objectives, however assuming the same kind of scenario as earlier in which 15% of the objectives need to be taken and an even distribution of defensive forces, the attackers would need an overall ratio in combat strength of 1.5:1.
It is important to note that this is assuming an even distribution of defending forces – if the enemy was able to predict the attackers plan then they might skew their defences in response, pushing the number of attackers needed upwards (perhaps requiring odds of 2:1). If on the other hand, the attackers were able to mislead the enemy into under defending the intended objectives they might get away with less overwhelming odds (perhaps as little as an overall 1.2:1)
In summary
The proportion of the attackers needed to overcome defence depends on essentially two things: The proportion of the defensive force that needs to be overcome in order to assure victory, and the ability to do this before the remainder of the defensive force can be mobilised to counter attack.
To address the Ops scenario. Lets say that taking control of 15% of the planets strategic locations would ensure dominance and eventual victory (the defenders would no longer have enough supplies/manufacturing capabilities etc to maintain the war), and the quality of the PDF and guard are on parity. The PDF consists of about 15 million active troops, 50 thousand aircraft, and 100000 tanks. (Based on numbers from modern earth).
The most likely scenario is that In addition to concentrated attacks on the necessary locations, diversionary attacks will take place across the planet. This would require at least 23 million troops, 125 thousand aircraft, and 250 thousand tanks. If the initial attacks failed and the situation ground down into a slugfest the war would require at least 45 million troops, 150 thousand aircraft, and 300 thousand tanks.

=Angel=
15-12-2013, 12:18
Or they could kill all the politicians (worldwide, the ones that matter)in the space of an hour.
They could do the same to high ranking officers.

If the planet didn't simply join the imperium out of gratitude the ability to respond would be greatly reduced.


I'd say a few assassins (polymorphine, poison delayed exotic explosives) would do the job- failing that a a few hundred Kasrkin squads deploying from Valkyries launched from behind the moon ( surprise motherfrakers) should clear them out.

Retrospectus
15-12-2013, 12:42
OK, we need to make a number of assumptions in order to consider this.
Firstly, the effect of Orbital firepower (which is variously ignored or considered to be so overwhelming as to be an auto-win). The conditions for this scenario set out by the OP preclude orbital firepower as an Auto-win, and the Nature of the 40k universe suggests that it is not so overwhelming in-universe as to negate the importance of ground troops. My own opinion on Orbital firepower is that it essentially constitutes a form of long ranged artillery – something that is an important addition to a forces effectiveness but which has been shown to be insufficient to win a war on its own (shielding, bunkers, dispersed formations, camouflage, etc all reduce the effectiveness of such artillery strikes).

That's what I've been saying all thread, orbital bombardment should be treated as artillery or an airstrike that cannot be countered by the opponent. use it to destroy their logistics rather than their forces. I.E. taking out factories, airfields and ports without fear of reprisal would be a huge strategic advantage. slowing down response times of defenders (as you said, one of the biggest issues is taking important targets before reinforcements arrive)

Tamuz
15-12-2013, 13:15
The point is that artillery and airstrikes are great things (especially when they can't be countered) but they have never proven sufficient to win a war by themselves. Damage to airfields, factories, ports and such (and even to civilian moral) from artillery has always tended to be limited due to things like limitations on accuracy (and lets face it, 40k orbital bombardments have never been shown as especially accurate), the ability of defenders to use camoflage and missdirection to reduce accuracy further, and the incomplete nature of the damage actually caused. Bombed factories can be rebuilt, new airfields cleared etc (which is why bombing in the second world war switched from targeting factories to targeting civilians - they were less easily replaced). Not to mention that such strikes can be defended against, and their damage minimised, by measures such as underground bunkers, armoured fortifications (the fact that spaceships have Armour capable of withstanding each others weaponry shows that buildings capable of withstanding the same could be built), and void shields etc.
Boots on the ground are simply more thorough at eliminating or taking over objectives than artillery is.
Also, proponents of the 'Orbital barrages rule' line of thought tend to forget that planets are just as capable (more capable in fact, without the same size limitations to contend with) of deploying large scale artillery as spaceships are, and many planets probably have weapons capable of returning fire to orbit.
Artillery and airstrikes are generally used to create disruption rather than to be decisive in and of themselves

Hawkkf
15-12-2013, 14:31
I think the problem is the parameters of the question. What kind of world is being conquered.

If its renegade imperial, only a relatively small force is needed to remove the leadership and replace it with loyal ones. The planet then more or less falls back in line.

If its a xenos planet, all of the aliens and thier tech need to be removed anyway so all of the nasty options like extetminatus stay on the table. In this case technological differences and familiarity of the forces fighting each other ate the key.

If its a new found human planet that hasn't been touched since before the imperium was founded, then it comes down to technological differences. If they have low tech they are easy to conquer. If they have extreme high tech it could draw the mechanicus with skitaari and titans getting a whole crusade group together to assist them in conquering this stc gold mine. If it has a resource the imperium could use readily, the forces would be determined by the founding rogue trader's assessment.

Present day earth falls into this category. Technologically inferior, but with plenty of fresh guardsmen waiting to be sent to fight for the glory of the emperor. Even if earth tried to fight back and the soldiers are the equivalent of pdf forces there are issues. A guardsman is equal to at least 2 or 3 pdf. They are the top 10% of a planet's soldiers before the get additional guard training. While some planets have better base soldiers, any governor thats sends a tithe of soldiers that don't meet the standards faces death and his family being replaced in power. Add to this that an astartes is supposed to be an equivalent of 100 guardsmen, then a 10 man space marine squad would have the combat effectiveness of 2-3000 pdf grade soldiers. One company of space marines drop prodding in to military bases and broadcasting them making a mockery of the military would push most earth equivalent worlds surrender. Sure there would be insurrection, but that is up to the new planetary governor to handle.

StygianBeach
15-12-2013, 15:45
The point is that artillery and airstrikes are great things (especially when they can't be countered) but they have never proven sufficient to win a war by themselves.

While mostly true I think you are underestimating the fire power of a few moderately sized asteroids. Fat Man and Little Boy was enough to get a surrender from Imperial Japan.

I am sure it would not take too many Asteroids before countries were asking for terms. As long as Countries have intact Governments and Police Force this should be possible.

Tamuz
15-12-2013, 15:59
I understand your point, however the nukes were not by themselves (as commonly believed) sufficient to force Japans surrender - they were an extra push for Japan to surrender n a war that had already been lost.

Aside from the fact that the OP stipulated that overwhelming orbital firepower should not be the determining factor in this, and that fluff depictions of the warhammer universe do not support the overwhelming advantage from orbital dominance that you suggest, you are assuming that the planet in question has no possible defence or retaliation against ships slinging asteroids at it, and that the asteroid slingers can do so with a high degree of accuracy. None of that seems to be supported (ignoring the fact that only Orks seem to use asteroids as weapons at all).

I see no reason from the fluff (or logic) to assume that ship based artillery would be any more effective than ground based artillery.

The only thing supporting your argument is the use of WMDs such as nukes, and these either seem conspicuously absent in the 40k universe, or defensive tech is such that their effects are not so overwhelming.

=Angel=
15-12-2013, 16:00
Astartes are certainly worth more than human soldiers, but tactically, strategically, not as some kind of net value.They recover from wounds that would take a man out of action and can eat the brainstem of their foes to extract information.They condense a lot of killing power into a very compact unit, much like a tank does, but are tactically more useful because they can go to ground or capture Intel or individuals.In a straight up open battlefield they are not worth 100 other men because weapons exist that can make a mockery of their armour.If a tactical squad ran into a tank squadron they'd die pretty fast except at extremely close range.The guard themselves are equipped with weapons whose roles we can recognize- grenade launchers, flame throwers, autocannons (advanced at cannons ) missile launchers.But they also have plasmaguns- a hand held rifle (or pistol!) that can take out a tank, melta guns- again hand held anti tank gun that cuts through the heaviest armour.These come in cannon form- plasma cannon and multimelta, not forgetting the lascannon. A planet with earth's level of tech would be boned

Hawkkf
15-12-2013, 16:40
Well according to some fluff marines are worth 100 guardsmen. It just doesn't translate to the tabletop. Fluff marines would be immune to all but anti-armor weapons shy of a lucky/well placed shot. Even then our current anti-tank weapons would be relying on kinetic energy as astartes armor is possibly superior to our current vehicle armor. If terminators drop in I don't think much conventional weaponry could touch them.

In all probability if a human based imperium showed up and landed space marines earth would willingly join up. If an alien based imperium showed up with alien space marines, well we would die fighting and probably nuke the planet in a futile attempt to take them with us.

Retrospectus
15-12-2013, 17:24
I think there's some confusion growing on this thread, Some people are talking about an earth-like planet in 40k, whilst others (like myself) are plotting the invasion of OUR earth, this changes the arguments a little. and of course the entertaining sideshow about the lack of realism in star trek.

perhaps we should split the thread? have everyone talking about contemporary earth move to a new thread so as to clear up some of this mess?

bittick
16-12-2013, 00:47
First, we should acknowledge that 40K fluff is highly variable. In some instances a Space Marine can eat a guy's brain and learn what his wife looks like naked. However that's a very rarely used ability, even during situations when it would be incredibly useful. Why didn't Ahriman eat a Harlequin's brain thousands of years ago so he'd just instantly know where the Black Library is? Because for whatever reason, the brain-eating thing doesn't work very often. It's either very limited in ability, or very few chapters have that ability. Maybe it's dangerous or time consuming, or maybe its abilities are relatively exaggerated. But generally nobody ever does it. A lot of the Space Marine implants and organs are used very infrequently.

Second, we should also remember that the Imperium is never able to bring its full might to bear against any one target. Sure, if they bring a Segmentum fleet with 20 marine chapters, a dozen Callidus Assassins, a Titan Legion, and a thousand guard regiments against a planet, they're gonna win. However that's a concentration of resources that the Imperium can't spare. We have numerous examples of planetary invasions that last for centuries, and botched campaigns by incompetent imperial commanders are too many to count.

Aun'aart'al
16-12-2013, 01:16
Re-reading the opening post, I suppose I understand where the confusion might have begun. to clarify, the scenario in this thread is the Imperium of Man conquering a world (yes, within the 40k universe..) that would have similar characteristics to an Imperial civilized world while taking some characteristics from modern day Earth, with a population of 7.195 billion people. This world has a standing PDF of 7.7 million soldiers with the ability to conscript an additional 1.1 billion more soldiers in a relatively short time. Other military assets this world has are 17,000 missile silos capable of hitting targets in orbit, less than 6,000 aircraft, and less than 1,400 sea-based warships. This world's technology level is on par with modern day Earth (2013), so autoguns-a-plenty.

You cannot use orbital bombardment against this world (infrastructure is deemed too valuable, rumors of an STC portion on the surface somewhere, doesn't matter, result is the same). This also includes no attacks of a nuclear nature. The Emperor himself banned the use of nuclear weapons, as they irradiate the planet you have just fought to take. Sours your victory.

Let's go on the assumption that this particular world is not overwhelmingly important, but not overwhelmingly unimportant either. Definitely not Armageddon or Cadia, but not some backwater Agriworld either. So let's say this world would be beneficial to the Imperium in the sense of another large manufactorum hub in this area of the galaxy, with the potential to supply several thousand regiments, within a 2,000LY radius. A couple added bonuses to taking this world include a relatively large population, and aside from one populated planet the rest of the system is untouched and rich in various important resources. This world has no intentions of joining the Imperium of Man willingly. Think of this world as a world settled before the Great Crusade, but for whatever reason(s) it has not made huge technological advancements and has had zero contact with the Imperium of Man, Mars, or any other human world.

Why Star Trek got into this is something else entirely. I suggest those interested take that particular conversation into another thread.

Again, sorry for the confusion everyone, when I read the post before hitting the button it sounded a lot better in my mind :p Still, some interesting perspectives being discussed in this thread, I like that :)

Tamuz
16-12-2013, 05:52
Well, if the worlds technology base is similar to that of modern day earth then I think the Imperium has a HUGE advantage. Depending on how advanced (or not, considering that imperial tech and doctrine seems to be based on WW2) the imperium is considered to be. I tend to be of the opinion that imperial tech is way more advanced than current, but I understand the argument that Imperial tanks seem poorly designed compared to modern ones.

A good basis of comparison would begin with the humble autogun. Is it equivalent to a modern assault rifle? or is it more powerful?

Even if the autogun and assault rifle are comparable, the imperium has access to weaponry that puts them a league above that (plasma, lascannons etc)

Once the difficulty of comparing tech levels has been established we need to consider the political status of the planet. Is it split into seperate powerblocks such as the nations on present day earth? If so, how will these powers react to the invaders? Will they unite against a common enemy? Act independently and not intervene to help their neighbours until they are directly threatened? Will some of them collaborate with the invaders?

Rowenstin
16-12-2013, 07:58
I don't know if the imprium uses certain equipment because it performs better, or because it's more economical or implies easier logistics, or just because it's what has been always using. If we're taking tabletop data as valid fluff, the imperium's most common APC's side armor can be pierced by a machine gun, or actually by a very strong man with a knife, just to make an example. We also have some weapons systems the imperium seems to ignore or not know of, laser guided bombs being one.

Also, the imperium seems to place a very high value on close mindedness, irratinality, mindless faith and lack of creative thinking. Unless a brilliant commander that somehow survived being branded as heretic for being too smart is directing the assault, the imperium's strategy is going to be utterly predictable, and 99% of the time it'll be "drown the enemy in bodies, we have more"

Harwammer
16-12-2013, 09:21
What could happen:
Spaceman with super tech appears from the heavens. "God is real, he is called The Emperor!"

After competition inside the Abrahamic religions Rome or the Middle East become the seat of the imperial throne.

Polaria
16-12-2013, 19:13
I don't know if the imprium uses certain equipment because it performs better, or because it's more economical or implies easier logistics, or just because it's what has been always using. If we're taking tabletop data as valid fluff, the imperium's most common APC's side armor can be pierced by a machine gun, or actually by a very strong man with a knife, just to make an example. We also have some weapons systems the imperium seems to ignore or not know of, laser guided bombs being one.

Also, the imperium seems to place a very high value on close mindedness, irratinality, mindless faith and lack of creative thinking. Unless a brilliant commander that somehow survived being branded as heretic for being too smart is directing the assault, the imperium's strategy is going to be utterly predictable, and 99% of the time it'll be "drown the enemy in bodies, we have more"

A few pointers:

Heavy Stubber is more akin to .50 cal than a "normal machinegun" and, believe it or not, many earthly APCs can actually be penetrated By .50 cal using typical AP bullets. So even if we do assume that heavy stubber is some archaic 20th century machinegun instead of high-tech gun firing high-tech bullets then the earthly APCs are hardly that much better protected. In any case the most "archaic" features of Imperial military tech is fluff-wise explained to be purposefully made lower-tech so they are easier to maintain and cheaper to produce in mass. Which kinda makes sense when invading planets that might be several years away from your nearest supply port...

Which brings me to another point: Even if you can't orbitally bomb the planet to ruins having orbital superiority means you can project force ANYWHERE on the planet at little or no warning to opponent. You have to remember that even the country with the best force-projection capabilities on Earth, USA, needs months of time, hundreds of ships and thousands of cargo flights to move any kind of bigger army and all the stuff the army needs to fight from mainland USA and other bases to actual area of conflict. Imperials with orbital superiority can basically choose to fight where there are no significant enemy troops anywhere nearby. If Imperials would choose to land now, on this hour, on Washington DC and the nearest miliatry garrisons there would be very little to oppose them. Earthly armies are not designed to mobilize and deploy around the world in days because they are designed to wage war against OTHER earthly armies which can't do that either, so there is no political need or funding to develop such 24/7 instant mobilization capabilities.

As for laser-guided bombs and other weapons Imperium seemingly lacks, you have to understand that weapons are developed out of perceived need. Laser- and GPS-guided bombs are not "inherently superior" to unguided bombs unless you take into the factor the way they are intended to be used. They are damn expensive systems. For the price of a single laser- or GPS-guided warhead you can produce literally hundreds of unguided warheads. For the price of the systems of communication and targeting needed, not to speak of the price of keeping 20 GPS satellites up in the orbit, you could hire, arm and supply millions of WW2 infantrymen. The sole reason why USA developed and paid for all those systems and put all those satellites up in the sky is to gain the ability to Project force faster across the globe. Its far cheaper, easier and more reliable to fire 100 unguided artillery rounds than to drop a single laser-guided bomb (which needs a high-tech fighter, another fighter or ground team to target the bomb, a weather and air-control system to keep everything flying, GPS satellites to navigate everything and a huge communications infratsructure to keep everything connected). The catch is that it is also 100 times faster and cheaper to transport the fighter and the bomb across the globe than it would be to transport the artillery battalion, all its men, all its vehicles, all the food, all the socks and all the fuel, oil and ammunition to fire the 100 unguided artillery rounds.

Imperium has unrivalled ability to transport ungodly amounts of stuff from Place A to Place B in timeframe that makes DHL look like a snail. Imperium doesn't NEED a laser-guided bomb because it can do the same with an artillery battalion and keep doing the same even after GPS satellites have been swatted out of the sky and communication lines are badly jammed that no targeter can get the targeting commands and air-control data through to the modern fightercraft.

Rowenstin
16-12-2013, 19:58
A few pointers:

Heavy Stubber is more akin to .50 cal than a "normal machinegun" and, believe it or not, many earthly APCs can actually be penetrated By .50 cal using typical AP bullets. So even if we do assume that heavy stubber is some archaic 20th century machinegun instead of high-tech gun firing high-tech bullets then the earthly APCs are hardly that much better protected. In any case the most "archaic" features of Imperial military tech is fluff-wise explained to be purposefully made lower-tech so they are easier to maintain and cheaper to produce in mass. Which kinda makes sense when invading planets that might be several years away from your nearest supply port...

The vehicle closest to a Chimera I can find is the Bradley, which is very similar in weight and max speed according to imperial armor. Some later, better protected versions of the Bradley can withstand 30mm armor piercing projectile hits all around, that's 1,18", while the chimera can be damaged by, again, .50 caliber machineguns. Actually, the IG codex entry notes that the heavy stubber is a favourite despite "it's lack of penetrative power", and as far I remember the heavy stubber has been described in multiple sources as a primitive weapon so we're not dealing here with a high tech piece of equipment.

I agree the Imperium has some pieces of very advanced tech, but also can be argued that it has glaring weaknesses.

Retrospectus
16-12-2013, 20:24
keep in mind that game mechanics don't equal fluff. even so a stubber can only inflict glancing hits and the odds of that are low. in real terms if you glance a chimera to deth you probably shot off the treads or something


also note: the imperium considers lasguns to be primitive despite being worlds ahead of anything we have today. not saying the stubber isn't just a big machine gun, just that the definition of primitive depends on the society in question (muskets would be practically magic to bronze age people)

=Angel=
16-12-2013, 20:26
Taking the game as fluff is hazardous because it relies heavily on the d6.
The strength system vs the armour system throws up stuff like this.
I want it to be strong enough to reliably wound guard- strength 4.
I want the armour to be reliably but not auto penetrated by strength 9 lascannons- armour value 10.
Oh, I guess the machinegun can now damage the tank...

Besides even if you go that route, a bolter is strength 4.
That mg is hitting with the strength of a small grenade- successive bolter hits can chew their way through armour.
Either the mg damaging tank armour is a quirk of a d6 system or it's more advanced than it seems. Qed

Loginis
16-12-2013, 23:34
Well, I guess the Imperium uses plasteel to make those primitive weapons, and that should be a bit stronger than most materials we use. Also, I'm sure, that they also have better propellants. These things should make a machine gun a lot more destructive.
The only thing I don't understand is how they deal with the kickback, especially if we consider these miniatures:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_INFANTRY_AND_ACCESSORIES/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_GRENADIER_HEAVY_STUBBER_AND_M ELTAGUN.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Chaos/CHAOS_RENEGADES/RENEGADE_MILITIA_HEAVY_STUBBER_TEAM.html
They either waste anti-grav technology to these, or have some pretty complicated mechanics inside. Maybe they use it in 2 round bursts, but still...

bittick
17-12-2013, 04:17
What could happen:
Spaceman with super tech appears from the heavens. "God is real, he is called The Emperor!"

After competition inside the Abrahamic religions Rome or the Middle East become the seat of the imperial throne.

I don't think that would actually work at all. I think your spaceman is likely to horrify and offend every adherent to an Abrahamic religion on the planet.

Polaria
17-12-2013, 07:29
I've shot automatic grenade launchers and heavy machineguns in real life and the recoil isn't that bad since the weapons are so damn heavy. I'm pretty sure you could fire AGL from hip with no problem if you could lift it properly. For HMG recoil much worse, but if you only used short bursts or had some sort of hydraulic counter like they use with heavy sniper rifles it might be doable. In any case its really hard to guess how much that recoil could be controlled by modern tech alone (no matter supertech) if weapons manufacturers wanted to go down that route. But since there is currently no need they simply don't waste their money on developing that sort of things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

intercepta
18-12-2013, 15:43
I reckon about 30-40 Space Marines to go after the world leaders, job done :)

Earth is after all a developed world, I think it'd be easier to take over a Imperial planet as they have such a centralised government. However thinking back at Gaunts Ghosts and I would imagine the Inquisition would manipulate certain parts of the world and set them against each other then usurping the leader of this alliance if they don't convert to the Imperial Creed which I think some would. Imagine them landing a Titan on the Statue of Liberty/Big Ben/using the Eiffle Tower as a tooth pick :p

bittick
18-12-2013, 23:35
Imagine them landing a Titan on the Statue of Liberty/Big Ben/using the Eiffle Tower as a tooth pick :p

I'm imagining that, and I'm remembering humanity's predilection to respond to confrontation with blind violence.

SpanielBear
19-12-2013, 03:59
OK, we need to make a number of assumptions in order to consider this.
Firstly, the effect of Orbital firepower (which is variously ignored or considered to be so overwhelming as to be an auto-win). The conditions for this scenario set out by the OP preclude orbital firepower as an Auto-win, and the Nature of the 40k universe suggests that it is not so overwhelming in-universe as to negate the importance of ground troops. My own opinion on Orbital firepower is that it essentially constitutes a form of long ranged artillery – something that is an important addition to a forces effectiveness but which has been shown to be insufficient to win a war on its own (shielding, bunkers, dispersed formations, camouflage, etc all reduce the effectiveness of such artillery strikes).
Secondly, the defending force can probably be assumed to be entrenched in defensive positions. This represents a combination of prepared defences, planned killing zones, pre-coordinated responses, knowledge of the local terrain and such as well as literal fortifications. If the defending force does not have this level of preparation then things are potentially much better for the attacker. It is important to note that the defender will not need to cover the whole planet with his defences, but only areas of strategic significance (more on this later). It is generally considered that in order to take a defended position, an attacker needs an advantage of at least 3:1 and while rough, I will consider this to be true for the purposes of this analysis.
Thirdly the ability of an attacker to dictate where he lands troops and coordinates his attack is an important advantage and opens up two possible scenarios. This is used by some as a justification to assume that the orbital attacker has nigh unlimited mobility, but importantly this mobility only lasts for deployment of his troops – once engaged the attackers forces are limited in their mobility (possibly more so than defending forces which may have infrastructure in place to facilitate mobility).
In the worst case scenario then, the attacker will simply land and engage all defending forces equally and thus require at least 3 times the total strength of the defensive garrison in order to be successful.
It has been pointed out that the attacker has a potential advantage over the defender in that he does not need to take every strategic location in order to win the war, but may win by taking a few key locations. The usual argument is that the attacker can take these locations, ignore everywhere else and win the war. Because the attacker would only need to gain a 3:1 advantage in these key locations, it would be possible to take the planet with a much smaller force than that being used for defense.
For example, if the defenders were spread evenly across all strategic locations but the attacker only needed to take 15% of those locations then he could obtain a 3:1 advantage in those key locations with a force numbering only half that of the total defensive garrison.
There are caveats to the success of such a plan however. The most important is that the battle must be over before the defender can mobilise the rest of his forces to counter attack (this includes landing, getting in position, taking the objectives, and reaping their benefit). This is important because it limits the kind of objectives that would be useful targets for this kind of attack – the benefits must be immediate (for instance the heads of state in a highly centralised society that would collapse without them, or power generators which can be irreversible destroyed) anything that needs to be held long enough for the enemy to mobilise in response (for instance taking food supplys in order to starve the enemy into submission) is essentially fighting the whole enemy force and so no better than the worst case assault outlined above (requiring 3 times the garrison for success). This is why the immediate defences of a given location will probably be intended to delay and extend the battle long enough to mount a counter attack rather than stop the attack outright. It also means the targets for this type of attack are exceedingly limited.
The second problem with this type of plan is that if there are locations that are vulnerable to this kind of assault, then the enemy will likely be aware of this as well and so they will be defended with a disproportionately high proportion of the defenders garrison, probably delaying the assault long enough to mobilise reserves. Interestingly this means that to pull off such an attack you need two things. A) targets suitable for such an attack but that the defenders do not consider vulnerable. B) forces fast and hard hitting enough to take the objective before the enemy can mobilise. Ie. this is exactly the conditions in which space marines could potentially take a planet against a much larger force.
The first problem is the biggest however – you need to take (and benefit from) your objectives before the enemy can mobilise his forces to counter your attack. This means that delaying and pinning his garrison as a whole in place is vitally important. Bombardments and such may help to slow mobilisation somewhat, but to ensure they are pinned in place a diversionary attack is necessary against each garrison force. These attacks can be minimal (they are not intended to succeed) but do need to be strong enough to pin the enemy in place. An accepted ratio for such diversionary attacks would be about 6:5.
The proportion of the defensive garrison that will need to be taken in order to establish dominance (and eventual victory) will vary according to the planet and the nature of the objectives, however assuming the same kind of scenario as earlier in which 15% of the objectives need to be taken and an even distribution of defensive forces, the attackers would need an overall ratio in combat strength of 1.5:1.
It is important to note that this is assuming an even distribution of defending forces – if the enemy was able to predict the attackers plan then they might skew their defences in response, pushing the number of attackers needed upwards (perhaps requiring odds of 2:1). If on the other hand, the attackers were able to mislead the enemy into under defending the intended objectives they might get away with less overwhelming odds (perhaps as little as an overall 1.2:1)
In summary
The proportion of the attackers needed to overcome defence depends on essentially two things: The proportion of the defensive force that needs to be overcome in order to assure victory, and the ability to do this before the remainder of the defensive force can be mobilised to counter attack.
To address the Ops scenario. Lets say that taking control of 15% of the planets strategic locations would ensure dominance and eventual victory (the defenders would no longer have enough supplies/manufacturing capabilities etc to maintain the war), and the quality of the PDF and guard are on parity. The PDF consists of about 15 million active troops, 50 thousand aircraft, and 100000 tanks. (Based on numbers from modern earth).
The most likely scenario is that In addition to concentrated attacks on the necessary locations, diversionary attacks will take place across the planet. This would require at least 23 million troops, 125 thousand aircraft, and 250 thousand tanks. If the initial attacks failed and the situation ground down into a slugfest the war would require at least 45 million troops, 150 thousand aircraft, and 300 thousand tanks.

I like these numbers, so lets run with them. Assume for sake of argument that a tithing imperial world will have a PDF equivalent to earth's combined military (in actuality some will have far more, some will have far less, but ceteris paribus). I believe the tithe is the top 10% of the planet's resources for that time? So a years tithe then becomes- 1.5 million troops, 5 thousand aircraft and 10 thousand tanks, if a tithe is ten percent. Assuming the least optimal conditions for the invading imperials, and giving them the span if a single tithe to mobilise, it would take the tithe of 30 worlds to overwhelm Earth. How many imperial worlds are there?

In conclusion, the numbers would be huge, but the imperium can manage them and then some :-)

Retrospectus
19-12-2013, 16:11
plus, remember they can demand more troops as needed. 10% not enough? take 50%

Polaria
19-12-2013, 16:42
In the Siege of Vraks Imperium sent 88th Imperial Guard Siege Army to put down the rebellion on a Armoury World of 8 million people. If I calculated the strenght of the 88th IGSA correctly it would have compassed of 18 infantry regiments, 5 tank regiments and around 9½ artillery regiments. Each infantry regiment had 7400+ men on them. So if we assume the artillery and tank regiments are around 550 men the total strenght of the 88th IGSA would have been around 141200 men. And this was assingned to put down a barely trained rebels on a worlds with population barely 0.1% of what Earth has. So 23 million (or 45 million) troops against Earth size planet is well within the implications of earlier fluff.

Its also worth noting that fresh reinforcements were constantly brought to keep the 88th IGSA manned. By the time the 88th IGAS was reinforced with more regiments and the first Space Marines came in the 88th IGSA had already lost around 1 million men, which would mean 700% casualties. The end tally on Vraks had the reinforced 88th IGSA at top strenght:

22 infantry regiments (~162800 men)
5 tank regiments (~2750 men)
9.5 artillery regiments (~5300 men)
146 engineer companies (~51100 men)

Total: 221950 men
Losses: 14 million (6300%)
In addition to this comes a couple of Titans, 16 companies of Astartes and a hulking 18 corps and 254 columns of Departmento Munitorum supply and labour troops... Probably amounting to several hundred thousand men.

The Navy support for the operation was 4 cruisers, 3 squadrons of escorts (9-12 total), 3 battle barges, 5 strike cruisers and 7 astartes escorts, meaning the total amount of naval crewmen present in-system would have been easily 500 000 men or more.

...and all this was for a planet of barely 8 million. Okay, a chaos infested planet which was finally completely destroyed, but still.

Felwether
19-12-2013, 20:11
Lets not forget that Vraks was a fortified armoury world dead set on rebelling against the Imperium and fanatically devoted to fighting them. That and the fact that they would have had quite a healthy amount of war materiel means that even with a population of only 8 million Vraks represented quite a hard target. Many other worlds would most likely capitulate after a shorter time having witnessed the Imperium continually commit more men to the meatgrinder.

flota
20-12-2013, 04:50
I still don't get why the Imperium didn't just blew the planet up after the daemons showed up

Sent from Holy Terra

Polaria
20-12-2013, 07:11
I still don't get why the Imperium didn't just blew the planet up after the daemons showed up

Sent from Holy Terra

Because of the strategically important infrastructure. Its easier for the Imperium to kill everyone and bring in a new worker population than to:

1) Find a new planet
2) Pacify the new planet if there happens to be dangerous alien xenomorphs there
3) Build a new infrastructure
4) Bring in new populations
5) Establish all new warp-routes from the new planet to all the raw resource producers and all the end product users

Rowenstin
20-12-2013, 09:32
Actually, that was exactly what it happened at the end. Vraks became a useless pile of rubble and corpses beyond reconstruction, but the campaign was considered to be a success.

Felwether
20-12-2013, 14:20
Actually, that was exactly what it happened at the end. Vraks became a useless pile of rubble and corpses beyond reconstruction, but the campaign was considered to be a success.

Such is the logic of the Imperium.

Polaria
20-12-2013, 15:12
Actually, that was exactly what it happened at the end. Vraks became a useless pile of rubble and corpses beyond reconstruction, but the campaign was considered to be a success.

This is because the end result was totally within the parameters set for "success".

Exorcist
20-12-2013, 16:29
Smash an Imperator Titan onto the Whitehouse or the Capitol.

2580
25-12-2013, 01:11
Total: 221950 men
Losses: 14 million (6300%)
In addition to this comes a couple of Titans, 16 companies of Astartes and a hulking 18 corps and 254 columns of Departmento Munitorum supply and labour troops... Probably amounting to several hundred thousand men.

The Navy support for the operation was 4 cruisers, 3 squadrons of escorts (9-12 total), 3 battle barges, 5 strike cruisers and 7 astartes escorts, meaning the total amount of naval crewmen present in-system would have been easily 500 000 men or more.

...and all this was for a planet of barely 8 million. Okay, a chaos infested planet which was finally completely destroyed, but still.

Losing 14 million IG is an affortable loss but losing 16 companies of marine , and a few titans that is not . And from what i know most of the naval vessal is unreplaceable ,no matter how many resource the Imperial have they just cant build an new one because some key part they just dont know how to rebuild it . For an almost replaceable planet they loss some many unplaceable asset ,well, that is some logic ......

Loginis
25-12-2013, 12:16
Losing 14 million IG is an affortable loss but losing 16 companies of marine , and a few titans that is not . And from what i know most of the naval vessal is unreplaceable ,no matter how many resource the Imperial have they just cant build an new one because some key part they just dont know how to rebuild it . For an almost replaceable planet they loss some many unplaceable asset ,well, that is some logic ......

They can build new ships, it just takes a lot of time, and they are less advanced with every passing millennia. I'm not sure, but a simple escort sometimes need a decade. And there are some extreme cases, like a battleship what was built under a millenium, because there was some chaos attack/civil war on the planet.

So it's not irreplaceable, but they are limited by the capacity of the local shipyards. Therefore, in a less developed sector they may need centuries to rebuild their defences after some pirate raids.

Retrospectus
25-12-2013, 14:22
Well having some idiot in a red robe insisting on blessing every nut and bolt tends to slow things down a bit

2580
26-12-2013, 04:06
They can build new ships, it just takes a lot of time, and they are less advanced with every passing millennia. I'm not sure, but a simple escort sometimes need a decade. And there are some extreme cases, like a battleship what was built under a millenium, because there was some chaos attack/civil war on the planet.

So it's not irreplaceable, but they are limited by the capacity of the local shipyards. Therefore, in a less developed sector they may need centuries to rebuild their defences after some pirate raids.

humm... but i as far as i recall , their are some backgound stroy in the gothic game book that say the skill to build some larger class plasma core and warp drive is a loss art , which is like dreadnought hull . and i take the battle barge and most of the balttleship will use those larger class plasma core and warp drive . the reason that the Imperial still got some many fleet is because they got a large amount of left over form the G C era and some times they got lucky finding some gost ship . of cos i could be wong . hahaha.

Loginis
26-12-2013, 15:11
humm... but i as far as i recall , their are some backgound stroy in the gothic game book that say the skill to build some larger class plasma core and warp drive is a loss art , which is like dreadnought hull . and i take the battle barge and most of the balttleship will use those larger class plasma core and warp drive . the reason that the Imperial still got some many fleet is because they got a large amount of left over form the G C era and some times they got lucky finding some gost ship . of cos i could be wong . hahaha.

They can build this: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Ramilles_Class_Star-fort#.UrxUYvRDvWE
The older engines are generally smaller, generate more power and proper the ship better, but they aren't a must have. If nothing else, they take the extra space from the crew's living quarters.

Of course, there are gigantic relic ships, but those have all kind of unique technologies, so the problem is not with the two most basic things of interstellar travel.

intercepta
29-12-2013, 15:13
The imperium would easily gain air control over earth as there planes can climb much higher making them impossible for us to shoot down in any number.

Then that's the ball game, they could take out what they want when they want after that.

I'm sure the Stormravens at least can outrun every weapon we have as they can get to a speed where they can escape a planets gravity field (to some extent)