PDA

View Full Version : Aquatic navy in 40k



TheGreatestGood
05-06-2015, 10:18
While musing earlier it struck me that there is very little if any reference to water warfare in 40k as a whole.
I understand why to a degree as it's more about space battles etc being a Sci fi setting.
There will surely be water based world's out there though. I wondered what peoples views were on an aquatic astra militarium or adeptus astartes. How would tyranids consume an ocean planet?
All moot points that will almost certainly never be expanded on, just wondered what peoples thoughts were or if they know of any fluff references to water based war in the 40k setting.

Lord Damocles
05-06-2015, 10:39
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?275570-Imperial-Navy-as-in-boats
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?381313-Water-borne-naval-warfare

Might help.

Snake Tortoise
05-06-2015, 13:15
Interesting discussion in those threads, I've sometimes wondered about boats in the 40k universe too

But the most recent posts in both threads come before the HH shattered legions/Alpha Legion novella about the promethium planet with city sized 'boats' suspended over the (liquid) surface with anti grav technology...

Oh god, I think I'm getting two stories mixed up here. That's what happens when you read too many HH books back to back. Maybe it's the Corax one which has the city sized grav ships hovering over the liquid planet? Anyway, in one of those stories they have (like I've said) large ship things suspended above the liquid surface which can move around like a giant boat, and presumably act as the aircraft carriers needed so that aircraft could fulfill any other role boats might have taken. It's worth reading (at least some of) those threads anyway but with big grav suspended cities that can move over water there might be no valid reason for conventional boats in advanced parts of the 40k universe

Doesn't mean they can't exist though. The universe is big enough to justify just about anything, I don't know why people get into such long winded arguments about this sort of thing

Born Again
06-06-2015, 13:45
^ The Laer from Fulgrim live on giant floating, coral atoll type things on a mostly ocean world.

Keep
06-06-2015, 18:10
Doesn't mean they can't exist though. The universe is big enough to justify just about anything, I don't know why people get into such long winded arguments about this sort of thing
Some just can't comprehend why you need combined arms to reach objectives sometimes...

TOXIK--13
28-06-2015, 11:21
I remember in one story the space marines just walk accross the bottem of the sea thats there was no need for boats. Im sure in some of the space wolves books they have long boats like the vikings but thats the population of fenris not the marines.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

Poncho160
28-06-2015, 14:40
I remember in one story the space marines just walk accross the bottem of the sea thats there was no need for boats. Im sure in some of the space wolves books they have long boats like the vikings but thats the population of fenris not the marines.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

That's was the Wolves who drove their Landraiders under water to attack at some marine based aliens.

It was either viewed as a cool snippet or a stupid fluff travisty depending in your feelings! Haha

Lord Damocles
28-06-2015, 16:45
That's was the Wolves who drove their Landraiders under water to attack at some marine based aliens.

It was either viewed as a cool snippet or a stupid fluff travisty depending in your feelings! Haha
The Space Wolves' assault against the Tau on Kvariam Alpha (Codex: Space Wolves (5th ed.), pg.20).

Arthanor
28-06-2015, 17:05
Indeed, wet Wolves striking at Tau sea floor base. With terminators fighting against battlesuits under water.

I wonder what kind of weapon they'd use.. bolt, rail and plasma weapons don't strike me as particularly suited to underwater combat.

Bloodknight
28-06-2015, 17:36
Some just can't comprehend why you need combined arms to reach objectives sometimes...


You don't really need boats of any kind if you have space ships and launch your troop transports and fighters and bombers from space. Blue water navy seems very obsolete in 40K for the same reason why we don't use big battleships anymore on Earth. No actual combat role. Nobody would use aircraft carriers on water if our planes could enter and exit the atmosphere without a problem.

Poncho160
28-06-2015, 18:47
You don't really need boats of any kind if you have space ships and launch your troop transports and fighters and bombers from space. Blue water navy seems very obsolete in 40K for the same reason why we don't use big battleships anymore on Earth. No actual combat role. Nobody would use aircraft carriers on water if our planes could enter and exit the atmosphere without a problem.

But what if you haven't got access to space ships? The imperial navy can't be everywhere:)

I'm assuming that beach assaults and marine landings are still a thing in the 40k universe, and you would need some form of boat for that.

Unless you are this cool of course: http://https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq8ol9XJPY

Poncho160
28-06-2015, 18:54
I'm pretty sure the Orks built a navy or had a submarine fleet during the third war for Armageddon. Think they used it to invade a hive city that was close to the coast line.

I might just be making this up, but I'm sure I remember Fabius Bile having a submarine in one of the Blood Angels books as well.

09philj
28-06-2015, 21:46
I'm pretty sure the Orks built a navy or had a submarine fleet during the third war for Armageddon. Think they used it to invade a hive city that was close to the coast line..

Ah yes, the attacks on Tempestora and Helsreach hives. They landed at the pole, and built a huge fleet of submersibles. These were deployed to attack oil rigs and coastal cities.

Kakapo42
29-06-2015, 03:32
I wonder what kind of weapon they'd use.. bolt, rail and plasma weapons don't strike me as particularly suited to underwater combat.

If I remember right the Tau had battlesuits and grav-vehicles (including a few mantas) modified for underwater travel and were armed with advanced torpedo weapons.

Allen
29-06-2015, 15:25
But what if you haven't got access to space ships? The imperial navy can't be everywhere:)

I'm assuming that beach assaults and marine landings are still a thing in the 40k universe, and you would need some form of boat for that[/URL]

You don't need spaceships to make water-based navies obsolete: you simply need vehicles able to bypass conventional air travel - either being cleared for stratosphere deployment like the Valkyrie or being able to jump in space and the jump back in the atmosphere like the lowly Aquila Lander. Why mounting a marine landing when you can simply assault the rebels/separatists/whatever from orbit? Besides that, official fluff tell us that basically every system with a modicum of technology have at least some "normal" starship (as in, non warp-capable) as part of the PDF for planet or system defence duties.

You need infantry and land vehicles for the aftermath of the campaign, for occupation and/or peace enforcing duties, of course, that's why the PDF keep grunts planetside. But waterborne navies? They have no place in military operations where you have access to space*




* this is a pretty solid (and widely accepted) theory in speculative warfare discussions, but this being WH40K there's always the possibility that GW will introduce waterborne navies in fluff or in the game because it sounds cool. It's not logic at all, but hey...even ground battles in 40K aren't logic.

Killgore
29-06-2015, 19:30
The second Bastion Wars book 'Flesh and Iron' features naval boats.

I fail to see why landing Naval ships is illogical? Drop a Naval aircraft carrier onto a planet's water mass (from an appropriate space cargo ship) and you have a ready made staging post for aircraft and ground forces. Think of the resources required if you had to have Marauder bombers and Thunderbolt fighters attempt to gain enough altitude to enter the upper atmosphere after every attack run if no appropriate base was available on the landmass? and also run the risk of the carrier getting attacked from ground based defence batteries and craft.

Arthanor
29-06-2015, 20:09
hum.. wait until the space ship is above/near but out of orbital defences and launch the attack? Presumably, the launching of the attack from orbit wouldn't take much resources, you just fall down. Granted, reaching orbit to get out would be more demanding though.

Dropping an aircraft carrier from orbit with a cargo ship sounds like a huge effort comparatively. A space cargo ship would be a huge target, and presumably not particularly well armed and armoured (since it has to save weight so it can take off again and extract that aircraft carrier). It is much easier to have dozens of small things repeatedly reach orbit than one humongous things. Space ships are built in orbit/space for a reason (and we only send small stuff to orbit for a reason too).

A space ship is also a lot more difficult to assault than an aircraft carriers, and since it doesn't have to land (or water?) and take off again, it can actually afford to be armoured and armed. Conventional planes, boats and submarines are much easier to build than space capable crafts, so being in space should be a lot safer. Being up there, you also have the advantage that your opponent has to expend a lot of resources to climb to orbit (usually by producing lots of fire/smoke, which is easy to spot), whereas you can just glide down to attack.

Finally, a space warship in orbit can rapidly access any point on the planet relatively quickly, whereas a boat is slow and can only ever access what is around the body of water it is in.

Water battles make little sense if you are space capable (unless someone is hiding under water), same thing for land battles really (unless someone is dug in such that orbital bombardment or aircraft strikes are not usable, or on something you want to claim rather than destroy.)

Poncho160
29-06-2015, 22:46
You don't need spaceships to make water-based navies obsolete: you simply need vehicles able to bypass conventional air travel - either being cleared for stratosphere deployment like the Valkyrie or being able to jump in space and the jump back in the atmosphere like the lowly Aquila Lander. Why mounting a marine landing when you can simply assault the rebels/separatists/whatever from orbit? Besides that, official fluff tell us that basically every system with a modicum of technology have at least some "normal" starship (as in, non warp-capable) as part of the PDF for planet or system defence duties.

You need infantry and land vehicles for the aftermath of the campaign, for occupation and/or peace enforcing duties, of course, that's why the PDF keep grunts planetside. But waterborne navies? They have no place in military operations where you have access to space*

* this is a pretty solid (and widely accepted) theory in speculative warfare discussions, but this being WH40K there's always the possibility that GW will introduce waterborne navies in fluff or in the game because it sounds cool. It's not logic at all, but hey...even ground battles in 40K aren't logic.

I agree with everything you said, and thought it myself, but then I reminded myself that this was 40k.

Air drops in 40k wouldnt work if the enemy has huge laser anti air weapons, or a huge inpenetreble force shield surrounding all their bases! Haha :) You could even go as far as environments that are inhospitable to fliers or complete marine worlds.

Naval combat and all that it entails defenently has a place in the 40k universe just for the reason of how varied it is, I think.

Wasn't there a big beach landing in one of the gaunts ghosts novels? I defenently remember a book with landing ships and Titans striding out of the water.

Arthanor
30-06-2015, 01:31
You should be able to deploy vastly superior weapons in orbit than anything you can land on a planet, unless that's a one shot landing and you can't lift it off again. At some point the weight of it will prevent you from lifting off with it again to redeploy, and likely cripple your mobility as well. As an attacking force, it is better to have your guns in space than on the water/ground.

Presumably, if there is a void shield strong enough to sustain the orbital bombardment, you could deploy ground troops/aircrafts/titans away from the hypothetical huge laser defences from orbit just as easily as you could from water. If you want to do a landing from ships, it also means you had to deploy the ships from orbit, which is a useless extra step.

Getting intercepted while on the ground isn't even really an issue, since we're assuming here that there is a single strong point holding due to orbital defences, so intercepting troops could be bombarded as they leave those defences.

Naval combat has a space in 40k just because it's cool, but there isn't much logic to it unless the author wants to shoehorn in a situation where it is the only solution. (ex.: an island fortress/land mass entirely covered by an impenetrable void shield and with such good orbital defences that you can't drop on it, but crappy enough anti-ship guns that you better chances from storming the beaches. Yup, a stronghold with such a glaring flaw was probably not planned by a son of Dorn or Perturabo...)

Razios
30-06-2015, 05:49
Naval combat has a space in 40k just because it's cool, but there isn't much logic to it unless the author wants to shoehorn in a situation where it is the only solution. (ex.: an island fortress/land mass entirely covered by an impenetrable void shield and with such good orbital defences that you can't drop on it, but crappy enough anti-ship guns that you better chances from storming the beaches. Yup, a stronghold with such a glaring flaw was probably not planned by a son of Dorn or Perturabo...)

Naval combat dosent get much atention because isnt cool at all and because again, space is ocean and having water based navy is just pointless for some.

In the end I will said that yes, Navy exist in warhammer but there should be a thing of individual planets having diferent ones instead of imperial guard thing.

Khastarax
30-06-2015, 08:39
With terminators fighting against battlesuits under water.


That sounds so awesome :D

Arthanor
30-06-2015, 15:02
Naval combat dosent get much atention because isnt cool at all and because again, space is ocean and having water based navy is just pointless for some.

In the end I will said that yes, Navy exist in warhammer but there should be a thing of individual planets having diferent ones instead of imperial guard thing.
I guess it's cool for some people but not others. Like any other "cool" thing..

But I agree that it makes more sense for PDFs to maintain a marine navy than the imperial guard/(space)navy.

mightymconeshot
30-06-2015, 21:24
There was in one of the early books. It was against an industrial center. The assault group was dropped short and basically the whole attack floundered until a small strike team got inside.

dusara217
01-07-2015, 07:00
Indeed, wet Wolves striking at Tau sea floor base. With terminators fighting against battlesuits under water.

I wonder what kind of weapon they'd use.. bolt, rail and plasma weapons don't strike me as particularly suited to underwater combat.
Bolt would be worthless, but Plasma would just solidify into a hunk of insanely hot liquid that would likely melt part of the Battlesuit. Also, Magnetic Acceleration weaponswould work just fine underwater.

dusara217
01-07-2015, 07:09
* this is a pretty solid (and widely accepted) theory in speculative warfare discussions, but this being WH40K there's always the possibility that GW will introduce waterborne navies in fluff or in the game because it sounds cool. It's not logic at all, but hey...even ground battles in 40K aren't logic.
You remind me of Jon Snow...

Something that you need to understand is that Naval warfare will never be obsolete. On any planet that is similar to Earth, or has more water than Earth does, conventional naval craft would be invaluable. With Valkyries, Thunderhawks, and the like, you could continue to fight 3-dimensional warfare with them acting as Submarines (due to them being airtight and having armour that's insanely thick). However, these craft would still need refueling and somewhere to go should their hulls be breached. Something like a small aircraft carrier would be invaluable for refueling these craft and enacting the repairs necessary for them to continue to function, which could not be done if these craft had to take the hours-long trip into space (massive fuel consumption, not to mention the fact that if the hull was breached, all of the crew would die).

Another valuable facet of having a conventional navy when fighting a planet-side war is that there would always be a mobile command center and base of operations planetside - akin to how the Emperor's Children needed to secure that first atoll in Fulgrim - without needing to actually fortify it (it would be like a mini-Phalanx, only meant for the sea).

Arthanor
01-07-2015, 16:44
Bolt would be worthless, but Plasma would just solidify into a hunk of insanely hot liquid that would likely melt part of the Battlesuit. Also, Magnetic Acceleration weaponswould work just fine underwater.

Hum.. I don't know if plasma would get anywhere though.. as it moves, that jet of fluid would mix with the rest and cool down pretty fast. Similarly, I though bullets didn't go far underwater? Wouldn't the projectile of railguns also slow down fast underwater?


You remind me of Jon Snow...

Something that you need to understand is that Naval warfare will never be obsolete. On any planet that is similar to Earth, or has more water than Earth does, conventional naval craft would be invaluable. With Valkyries, Thunderhawks, and the like, you could continue to fight 3-dimensional warfare with them acting as Submarines (due to them being airtight and having armour that's insanely thick). However, these craft would still need refueling and somewhere to go should their hulls be breached. Something like a small aircraft carrier would be invaluable for refueling these craft and enacting the repairs necessary for them to continue to function, which could not be done if these craft had to take the hours-long trip into space (massive fuel consumption, not to mention the fact that if the hull was breached, all of the crew would die).

Another valuable facet of having a conventional navy when fighting a planet-side war is that there would always be a mobile command center and base of operations planetside - akin to how the Emperor's Children needed to secure that first atoll in Fulgrim - without needing to actually fortify it (it would be like a mini-Phalanx, only meant for the sea).

I doubt you can use aircrafts/space crafts as submarines.. There is an immense difference in going from ground to space and going from sea surface to depth. Having a thick hull doesn't really help either since the pressure is equally applied to joints and weak points that would be protected from direct fire by armour plates.

The fuel cost of lifting ships/floating command centers from the ocean after an operation would be much larger than getting planes to come back to orbit a few times. Imperial logistics are also different, with relocating armies across a planet not being much of a deal (ex.: Grimaldus manages it with the forces from Helsreach, during the season of fire on Armageddon, to support the Celestial Lions in Blood and Fire) you don't really need a base of operation near your target, and you already have a mobile HQ, in space.

Poncho160
01-07-2015, 17:19
Normal bullets from a handgun or rifle are completley ineffective once they hit water. Talking literally cms.

Saw a video of a guy firing a magnum into a few small hung up water ballons. The bullet didn't have enough power to make it past the third ballon. Maybe about 20 cms tops.

No idea how made up future weapons would work underwater though, lol

Bloodknight
01-07-2015, 17:59
It's kinetics. Machine gun fire with the 7.62mm Nato stop being effective at about 40cm depth when the bullets they enter at a sharp angle. We tried it :)

Sai-Lauren
01-07-2015, 18:05
Naval combat dosent get much atention because isnt cool at all and because again, space is ocean and having water based navy is just pointless for some.

Naval combat doesn't figure because the ranges would mean you'd need something smaller than epic scale - Epic's around 1:300th scale - naval wargaming models are somewhere around 1:2000th.



In the end I will said that yes, Navy exist in warhammer but there should be a thing of individual planets having diferent ones instead of imperial guard thing.
And if the Guard need to go and sort out a rebellious planet with a navy? ;)

Arthanor
01-07-2015, 19:37
If it's small enough, sink it with super heavy flyers deployed with their escort from orbit? There's a reason navies (and especially huge battleships) aren't really in vogue any more: It's too easy to sink them with planes/missiles compared to the investment required to build them.

What keeps navies going is the need to project force far on the planet, something that space control and space warships (since they don't have treaties to prevent the militarisation of space like we do) and better transports (as I mentioned above from Blood and Fire) would do for the Imperium better than a water navy.

The weapon/defence balance is a bit shifted in 40k (weapons are weaker compared to defences), so it might be possible for rebels to build a big enough ship to have enough armour/void shields to resist planes though. It should still have weaker armour and weapons than a starship for which weight is insignificant, while being big enough to resist planes and missiles means it's probably big enough to target from orbit.

Submarines are a more difficult one, but what can they do while staying submerged? Shoot their missiles until they don't have any, then.. If they have a submarine base to resupply, attack it the way space wolves did I guess. Otherwise patrol the oceans and try to sink what surfaces, or let them rot under the ocean.

Bloodknight
01-07-2015, 20:17
It's too easy to sink them with planes/missiles compared to the investment required to build them.

Yeah, you spend billions on building aircraft carriers and some guys with a bunch of anti-ship missiles can sink them relatively easily. There've been a lot of map exercises over the US attacking Iran in the Persion gulf where Iran answers with Exocet anti-ship missiles. Most of them ended up not pretty.

dusara217
02-07-2015, 00:31
Hum.. I don't know if plasma would get anywhere though.. as it moves, that jet of fluid would mix with the rest and cool down pretty fast. Similarly, I though bullets didn't go far underwater? Wouldn't the projectile of railguns also slow down fast underwater?



I doubt you can use aircrafts/space crafts as submarines.. There is an immense difference in going from ground to space and going from sea surface to depth. Having a thick hull doesn't really help either since the pressure is equally applied to joints and weak points that would be protected from direct fire by armour plates.

The fuel cost of lifting ships/floating command centers from the ocean after an operation would be much larger than getting planes to come back to orbit a few times. Imperial logistics are also different, with relocating armies across a planet not being much of a deal (ex.: Grimaldus manages it with the forces from Helsreach, during the season of fire on Armageddon, to support the Celestial Lions in Blood and Fire) you don't really need a base of operation near your target, and you already have a mobile HQ, in space.
Aircraft like the Thunderhawk and Valkyrie would be more than capable of going a few hundred feet underwater - not like they'd be going into the trenches of the Pacific, mind you, but they would still be able to go underwater for sustained periods of time, as even weak points are incredibly strong in comparison to modern armour. The main reason that I believe this is because they are capable of sustaining the massive heat of entering an atmosphere repeatedly without suffering hull collapses.

As for weapons, Plasma is the fourth stage of matter. Plasma is generally 99,999,726.85 degrees Celsius, 10 E 8 degrees kelvin. For comparison, the sun is 149,999,726.85 degrees Celsius, 1.5 E 8 degrees Kelvin. More than anything, the Plasma would boil all the water around it for dozens of meters.

Railguns are far more powerful than standard bullets, and thus would be more effective underwater, but, now that I think about, they would be ineffective in said situation.

Poncho160
02-07-2015, 07:04
Aircraft like the Thunderhawk and Valkyrie would be more than capable of going a few hundred feet underwater - not like they'd be going into the trenches of the Pacific, mind you, but they would still be able to go underwater for sustained periods of time, as even weak points are incredibly strong in comparison to modern armour. The main reason that I believe this is because they are capable of sustaining the massive heat of entering an atmosphere repeatedly without suffering hull collapses.

As for weapons, Plasma is the fourth stage of matter. Plasma is generally 99,999,726.85 degrees Celsius, 10 E 8 degrees kelvin. For comparison, the sun is 149,999,726.85 degrees Celsius, 1.5 E 8 degrees Kelvin. More than anything, the Plasma would boil all the water around it for dozens of meters.

Railguns are far more powerful than standard bullets, and thus would be more effective underwater, but, now that I think about, they would be ineffective in said situation.

If we ignore the rule of cool and the future technology of the 40k universe, space ships and aircraft would be of no use underwater, they would not generally be designed to withstand any pressure, seeing as there is no pressure in space. Designing them to withstand pressure would just be a waste of time and make them a lot heavier, making leaving any planets atmosphere a lot harder.

Thats how i understand it anyways, haha :)

Arthanor
02-07-2015, 15:24
@Bloodknight: Interesting to know that they did that.. Maybe military HQs are like a wargamer's dream with all those simulations :D

@dusara217/Poncho160:
Indeed, it's not like the space shuttle is a great submarine, even though it was designed to endure re-entry multiple times. Those are entirely different stresses to put a craft through and designing a space air submarine ship would likely make it pretty bad at everything or too demanding in resources to be worth it. A spaceship needs to withstand a 1 atmosphere difference pushing out, a submarine 20m below the surface already has to suffer 2 atmospheres pushing in (10 meters of water is 1 atmosphere of pressure, it goes up really fast, compared to going from 1 to 0 going to space.)

Armour designed to sustain impacts doesn't really help either, as that's plates on a structure, with lots of joints and weak points in between, not a solid body. Also, I doubt that reaction engines designed for space/atmospheric flight work under water.

And regarding plasma, sure it's really hot. You do realize that at those order of magnitude, Celsius and Kelvins are pretty much the same, right? The difference between the two is a flat 273.15, 1C = 1K, so once you're past 10^6, it doesn't matter much.

Plasma is indeed incredibly energetic and it would indeed explosively vaporize water. The main issue is that it would start to vaporize right from the moment it leaves the plasma weapon, which means right in the face of the gunner. The pressure wave from rapidly expanding water would be lethal (and propagate in all directions, so including towards the gunner). A plasma bomb/grenade could be a great weapon underwater, but a gun? Not really. All that said, I'm sure if there's ever a 40k novel about underwater fights, it'll include plasma bolts sizzling as the boil their way through water towards their target.

As for railguns, they are more powerful than other ballistic weapons, yes. Slowly dip your hand in water. Very little resistance. Jump in water from increasing heights. It hurts increasingly more. Water resists movements more the faster that movement is. I would not expect the projectile from railguns to make it very far, but it'd make a big splash. And again, I'd expect Tau rail-harpoons that work just fine in a 40k novel ;)

Razios
02-07-2015, 22:29
Againt, if there is aquatic navy it should be the responsability of each planet to mantain it, after all there is not reason for the monitoruim to put aquatic ship if each planet is going to be diferent

Bloodknight
02-07-2015, 22:59
Interesting to know that they did that.. Maybe military HQs are like a wargamer's dream with all those simulations

Well, they have to, really. Military red vs blue simulations are needed to prepare for possible or even probable conflicts, you can't just walk in without a plan. Of course those simulations are conducted quite often because they need to be up to date with the possible opponent's military capabilities, like, say, a new AA system that would change the way the airforce needs to engage, a new tank that can't be defeated by current anti-tank weapons etc. :)


Also, I doubt that reaction engines designed for space/atmospheric flight work under water.

They could theoretically have a system that allows them to use supercavitation, like that Russian Shkval torpedo which uses a rocket engine and vectored thrust to steer at speeds over 350 km/h underwater. With a nuclear warhead it could easily take out a modern day carrier group because ships can't dodge it. Which is also why I'd argue that in 40K blue water navies are obsolete. The imperium and its foes probably have no problems with using tactical nukes or equivalents, unlike people on Earth today.

Razios
02-07-2015, 23:25
Which is also why I'd argue that in 40K blue water navies are obsolete. The imperium and its foes probably have no problems with using tactical nukes or equivalents, unlike people on Earth today.

I dont think so much, it is emperor planet after all.

Not that im saying this to you but the whole "NUKE EVERYTHING, IS THE ONLY CHOICE" many sci fi put off every now and them

Arthanor
04-07-2015, 00:34
Actually, I think that nuclear weapons are frowned upon by the imperium. Can't remember where I got that from however. "Luckily", (and entirely unsurprisingly) they have other equally devastating weapons that they don't mind using, which have the side advantage of not leaving radioactive stuff after either.

The bearded one
04-07-2015, 03:57
There are some naval ships in the novel 'fire caste' (by Peter fehervari - shockingly good read), where some of the story takes place on a naval ship used as HQ by the imperial guard. It's a complete decrepit rustbucket though. At various points in the novel they also use a number of smaller boats (river-boats) for transport and the like.

Keep
08-07-2015, 14:18
Water battles make little sense if you are space capable (unless someone is hiding under water), same thing for land battles really (unless someone is dug in such that orbital bombardment or aircraft strikes are not usable, or on something you want to claim rather than destroy.)
That's utter nonsense. If that was the case you wouldn't need ground forces either. If the enemy build a base below watersurface, what are you gonna do with your fancy spaceships?
If the base is not exactly on the ocean floor, you can't drop marines on the sea floor either.

The Imperial Navy (in space) is not omnipresent, and not uncontested. If the enemy has a space fleet and a naval fleet, and you only have a space fleet, you lose. On a water world, where do you wanna land your aircraft or tanks? Aircraft have limited range and tanks/infantry need solid ground to operate on. If the seafloor is too deep you can't deploy sealed up groundvessels.
Fire from space isn't very accurate either, so if the enemy has many small water-surface vessels spread out, you can't eliminate them by raining fire from orbit. If he has under-surface vessels you can't do **** from orbit basically, because they are undetectable.

Aircraft do not replace watercraft or groundvehicles and infantry and neither do space ships. They all are required in certain situations.
If Titans and giant Landvehicles (Leviathan) are not obsolete, then Watercraft in all shapes and sizes (including gigantic ones) can not be obsolete either. They are dropped by huge landers, and in the same fassion "wet" ships would be brought down on the planet.


Actually, I think that nuclear weapons are frowned upon by the imperium. Can't remember where I got that from however. "Luckily", (and entirely unsurprisingly) they have other equally devastating weapons that they don't mind using, which have the side advantage of not leaving radioactive stuff after either.
Deathstrikes... according to the latest codex entries they become used more frequently as well. Maybe not large scale use, but tactical nukes? I certainly think so, if it's open terrain... that bit of fallout is neglegible for the imperium, unless its a big city or something very important.

dusara217
09-07-2015, 05:42
Actually, I think that nuclear weapons are frowned upon by the imperium. Can't remember where I got that from however. "Luckily", (and entirely unsurprisingly) they have other equally devastating weapons that they don't mind using, which have the side advantage of not leaving radioactive stuff after either.
Pretty sure that the Imperium frowns on every kind of fighting that doesn't involve them being as badass as humanly possible, no matter how illogical said modes of combat are. *cough* chainswords *cough*


That's utter nonsense. If that was the case you wouldn't need ground forces either. If the enemy build a base below watersurface, what are you gonna do with your fancy spaceships?
If the base is not exactly on the ocean floor, you can't drop marines on the sea floor either.

The Imperial Navy (in space) is not omnipresent, and not uncontested. If the enemy has a space fleet and a naval fleet, and you only have a space fleet, you lose. On a water world, where do you wanna land your aircraft or tanks? Aircraft have limited range and tanks/infantry need solid ground to operate on. If the seafloor is too deep you can't deploy sealed up groundvessels.
Fire from space isn't very accurate either, so if the enemy has many small water-surface vessels spread out, you can't eliminate them by raining fire from orbit. If he has under-surface vessels you can't do **** from orbit basically, because they are undetectable.

Aircraft do not replace watercraft or groundvehicles and infantry and neither do space ships. They all are required in certain situations.
If Titans and giant Landvehicles (Leviathan) are not obsolete, then Watercraft in all shapes and sizes (including gigantic ones) can not be obsolete either. They are dropped by huge landers, and in the same fassion "wet" ships would be brought down on the planet.
I agree with every point except for when you said that space weapons would be inefffective against millions of smaller water craft. All it would take is one space rock or nuke to cause massive boat-killing waves - not neccessarily globally, but you get the picture.

Keep
09-07-2015, 21:30
All it would take is one space rock or nuke to cause massive boat-killing waves - not neccessarily globally, but you get the picture.
If the boats are seperated over hundreds of square kilometers in small units you will achieve very little with nukes or rocks if its supposed to keep the planet intact. A tsunami wave is not particulary dangerous to boats as opposed to artificial/natural islands. And the water thrown in the air that would crush boats is only in a very small area around the impact. The wave (from an asteroid) is alot bigger/far reaching then the crushing water that would come down.
And again - if they are underwater the stuff you throw at the water from above will have a reduced effect. Unless you want to call an exterminatus you would have to locate the targets first, which is not particulary easy if it's small units and basically impossible if they are underwater.

Astrella
28-07-2015, 23:42
Efficiency also plays a part in it, flight requires a lot more energy than naval transport and getting things into orbit vastly more. It would be a lot easier to use a quick-response navy on a mostly aquatic world rather than a massive air force / space force.

Keep
30-07-2015, 18:32
flight requires a lot more energy
Energy is (at least in most scifi settings) less of a problem, since there is always some "infinite energy source" tech thing around. But if you focus on the tech level you need for flight vs. floating in water, it's easy to see the advantage. For making a ship swim you just throw a steel hull with enough buoyancy in the pond and that's it. For a hover/airunit you need to have complicated thrusters/engines that continuously have to operate to make it float/fly. Once enough engines fail (depending on level of redundancy), it falls out of the sky. So not only is it more ressource inefficient (not just energy but technology/ressources as well), but also alot more vulnerable. Keeping something afloat in the water in case of damage is alot easier then keeping it afloat in the air. You can seal a hole and pump water out. Trying that with air won't succeed.

Toffernz
03-08-2015, 08:02
UK Golden Demon Award 1991 Silver. IG Gunship. I remember seeing this in WD at the time and being amazed by its awesomeness

http://demonwinner.free.fr/uk/1991/golden_demon_winner.php?categorie=6#2nd

Keep
04-08-2015, 01:07
i feel like for the old GD's they "tolerated" alot more creativity/liberty back then... like the tank transporter, or the steel legion "stalingrad" display with 2 custom build tanks.