Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

Post Reply
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Ryan Thunder »

Simon_Jester wrote:True, but the fact that the Imperials even bother with self-propelled AAA like the Hydra suggests a deficiency there: shoulder-launched AA missiles may work, but they want something more.
All I'm saying is that it isn't totally absent.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
lPeregrine
Jedi Knight
Posts: 673
Joined: 2005-01-08 01:10am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by lPeregrine »

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:True, but the fact that the Imperials even bother with self-propelled AAA like the Hydra suggests a deficiency there: shoulder-launched AA missiles may work, but they want something more.
All I'm saying is that it isn't totally absent.
Not totally, but it's going to be pretty minimal. MANPADS might be nasty against low-flying skimmers, but would be worthless against high-altitude aircraft (like a Remora launching seeker missiles at ground targets) and questionable against true aircraft like the Barracuda or Tigershark. Giving your conscript horde missile launchers might stop the strafing runs, but if you want to stop missile attacks you need Manticores armed with high-altitude SAMs.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Simon_Jester »

Question: where is the Manticore described as a SAM launcher? I'm familiar with them only in their MLRS-analogue capacity.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Black Admiral
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1870
Joined: 2003-03-30 05:41pm
Location: Northwest England

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Black Admiral »

Simon_Jester wrote:Question: where is the Manticore described as a SAM launcher? I'm familiar with them only in their MLRS-analogue capacity.
It can be inferred from Malleus (with Manticore batteries mentioned alongside Hydras as tracking Eisenhorn's gun-cutter), and I believe is explicitly stated in IA 1 or 2; possibly Aeronautica Imperialis as well.
"I do not say the French cannot come. I only say they cannot come by sea." - Admiral Lord St. Vincent, Royal Navy, during the Napoleonic Wars

"Show me a general who has made no mistakes and you speak of a general who has seldom waged war." - Marshal Turenne, 1641
User avatar
Gunhead
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: 2004-11-15 08:08am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Gunhead »

Simon http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Manticore <--- if it's accurate. Says it can supplement the Hydra if armed with AA missiles.

-Gunhead
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel

"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives
User avatar
lPeregrine
Jedi Knight
Posts: 673
Joined: 2005-01-08 01:10am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by lPeregrine »

Simon_Jester wrote:Question: where is the Manticore described as a SAM launcher? I'm familiar with them only in their MLRS-analogue capacity.
Imperial Armour 1 describes an alternate option of high-altitude SAMs, but the rules for them didn't come until later. It keeps the same four huge missiles, so we can reasonably assume a pretty significant increase in performance compared to the Hydra or infantry missile launchers (rules-wise, it has double the range of the Hydra and much higher strength).

And of course this is the original Forge World model for the Manticore with the turret, the new GW version probably wouldn't work so well as an AA weapon.


edit: Black Admiral is correct, it's also given as ground-based AA in Aeronautica Imperialis (where it's quite effective, and can hit targets at +8 altitude to the Hydra's +3).
Last edited by lPeregrine on 2012-04-24 02:55pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Simon_Jester »

Programming a missile to pivot immediately after being fired isn't that hard to do, though it's hard on anyone standing on the ground near the launcher. Ballistic missile subs fire everything straight up, but still have the missile arc over toward the target, after all. Still, you're probably right.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7569
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by PainRack »

Simon_Jester wrote:True, but the fact that the Imperials even bother with self-propelled AAA like the Hydra suggests a deficiency there: shoulder-launched AA missiles may work, but they want something more.
The Hydra guns are more capable than our normal AA guns and fulfill a slightly different tactical role.

While AAA guns in modern context are meant to provide short range, last ditch defences and to prevent enemy aircraft from flying at low level, the Hydra has the ability to shoot down Mycetic Spores and other fast, flying objects at much longer ranges, achieving the same threat profile the long range AA guns such as the 88mm used to achieve. And unlike those guns, they're supposed to be very effective at shooting them down, presumably due to their ROF.

Assuming that the once locked on, aircraft is going down is based on some nugget of truth in Imperial propaganda, this shouldn't be seen as a defiency.

It would be..... interesting to see what fluff is available on the coordination of an IADS. The only one I know would be in Cain Last stand, where Felicia intergrated the Chimaeras multilasers and shared tracking data to shoot down those Chaos shuttles.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

Simon_Jester wrote:Guys? Hang on a second.

Zinegata, could you please just stop, take a breath, calm down, and explain exactly what your strategy looks like here? Because it seems really... undefined.
Why do you think I asked for the terrain? ;)

Again, a strategy will differ depending on the terrain. Sending massed infantry to Taros would be stupid, because the water consumption would increase the supply requirements for the infantry making them impractical.

What I'm saying is that as a general principle, you should in fact be willing to deploy large numbers of infantry (which is logistically cheaper to maintain on the field than a tank) because the Tau's ability to suppress infantry is suspect. Again, people may claim they have artillery stored in a super secret warehouse somewhere, but that's something we seriously never see, and the Tau specifically state in their doctrine that they do NOT like these weapons and they'd rather send in their auxilaries.

And like I said, if you're gonna deploy a million Tau mech infantry (plus 2 million garrisons), that means they get 100,000 vehicles. Which means that to maintain a proper force ratio I can in fact ask for 9 million infantry and 300,000 tanks. That's a World War 2 level of commitment, but if the Tau actually deploy that much force then that's what you need to beat them.

Now, some technical issues before I have to run:
Sure, some cost, but enough cost (to a civilization that puts advanced AI on expendable weapon platforms) that it offsets the far superior accuracy?
The problem again is that you have to find the enemy for the accuracy to be worth anything. And again: Infantry is superior to tanks at hiding. It is easier to conceal a lascannon team than a tank.

If you're saying the drones can find the lascannon team easily, then they're gonna find tanks even MORE easily.

This is why the ability to simply plaster an area with explosives is important. If you hit everything in an area with explosives, it wouldn't matter if you didn't spot the lascannon team. There's a good chance they'd be suppressed.
And guess what carries those AA weapons: TANKS.

Obviously you can take a battery of Manticores with AA missiles to defend your supply convoy, but that directly contradicts your "no tanks" rule. You can't have it both ways, if you want to leave all of the tanks at home, you don't get any useful AA defenses.
Really? Which tanks?

Aside from the Manticore and the Hydra, none of the Imperial tanks actually have any integral AA capability that's any better than a machinegun.

Moreover, we know the Hydra has a towed variant that can be used by the infantry. So even if the IG infantry don't have MANPADs, we know that they can tug along some towed AA guns, and having towed SAM batteries wouldn't be out of the question as well.

So really, what ELSE do the tanks have that make them so much better at AA?

Also, one more thing: While we do know some Imperial tanks have better electronics and auspex, we know that this doesn't apply to all of them. So even the argument that "tanks have better electronics for improved targetting!" may not hold true, and ignores that infantry can also have some kind of improved targetting gear.
First of all, the tanks and mechanized infantry have fewer bodies to feed.
That's just wrong.

You are forgetting that a mechanized force requires fuel. Think it through again dude. Mechanized infantry have greater supply requirements than regular infantry. Without fuel, mech infantry is just infantry. Imperial tanks still run on gas.

Infantry by contrast require only food and ammo reloads. In the case of lasguns, ammo reloads may not even be necessary. And food may not even be required if the infantry can forage. There's a reason why stuff like Sherman's March to the Sea was possible with infantry alone.

So again, no. Mech requires greater logistical requirements even with fewer troops. Because you need everything an infantry force needs PLUS fuel. And fuel can't really be foraged the same way food can.

Finally...
Use the Space Marines and orbital support to gain air supremacy by hitting the bases, with air supremacy, you actually know where the enemy is moving at any time, especially in a desert environment. That means you not only can pound them to bits using airpower, you can use your landers and shtick to land strong blocking forces while you sweep in to kill the enemy.

The only thing that prevented this was some air defence network coordinated with Tau interceptors....
I love how Pain Rack keeps accusing me of being an idiot for not using mechanized forces... when his Taros battle plan does not even use mechanized forces at all and apparently relies entirely on Space Marines and air power.

=== TL;DR:

Infantry is "Queen of Battle" for a reason, people. Mech does not magically render them irrelevant, and often times just having enough infantry (who have integrated anti-tank and anti-air weapons anyway) is what you need to deny a fast-moving enemy force. Plus they're much less costly in terms of logistical requirements in most terrain.
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

Gunhead wrote:
Zinegata wrote: Like I keep saying, you should always have some tanks and mech forces (or ideally Air Cav). But force composition should be weighted MUCH more towards manpower.
Ideal force compositions vary wildly by terrain. Thumb rule of infantry is mechanized is the best then motorized then foot for fighting a large scale conventional war. Air Cav works too but for most large scale fights there's usually too little of it and has the traditional drawback of any air moved force of being lightly equipped compared to a land based force.

-Gunhead
Actually, World War 2 showed that infantry with some mech/tank support is still highly viable. Only the US and British armies were able to truly have a fully motorised/mech army (see the liberation of France for their biggest success), but in a grinding attritional battle (i.e. Hurtgen Forest, Normandy Bocage) these forces still had plenty of trouble against the German army, which at this point was mainly composed of infantry and some Panzers. Because ultimately, you need to send in infantry (supported by tanks) to dig out entrenched infantry, or use a really huge amount of crushing artillery fire with infantry following in its wake to sweep up the remnants.

Post-World War 2 has allowed the creation of vast fleets of mechanized armies for both NATO and Warsaw Pact, but there's a growing realization that maybe you don't need to have every infantryman carried to battle in a Bradley. Because again mech is very expensive to maintain and keep in the field.

But we aren't talking about a society that has enough surplus to make all of their troops mech infantry. We're talking about the Imperium, which tends to have a lot more infantry than mech because of the level of development in many of its worlds. So again, why not use them against an enemy that is lacking in the one weapon that is most effective against them - artillery? Certainly more sense than sending them into melee against the 'nids.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Simon_Jester »

For one, the "3:1" ratio thing doesn't work the way you think it does. At the tactical level that's a traditional force level for achieving success at the point of contact. At the strategic level it is neither necessary nor possible under normal conditions. Most major land wars were fought with much less than 3:1 odds in favor of the attacker. For the Imperium against the Tau it's at least possible to get those odds, but a strategy that will fail utterly unless you vastly outnumber the enemy leaves a lot to be desired.

The logistics needs of ten thousand foot infantry are less than the requirements of ten thousand mechanized infantry or armored troopers.

But you can't just replace ten thousand mechanized infantry with ten thousand foot infantry when fighting a highly mobile opponent, Zinegata, it won't work. You won't be able to react fast enough if they do something clever.

You yourself have pointed out the need to place dense fortifications and strongpoints all over huge areas of land, and to heavily guard one's own supply routes with manpower-intensive static positions. Put all that together, and you're going to need a lot of men to secure yourself against a mobile opponent.

Can you really say that the logistics of the many, many division-equivalent units you'll need to neutralize the mobility of an enemy mechanized division will all cost less than throwing in two of your own mechanized divisions?

I think this is another idee fixe: you hear "mechanized forces have high logistics requirements" and seem not to be thinking about whether this mechanized force will have higher requirements than that foot infantry force, when that force is much, much more numerous.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

Simon_Jester wrote:For one, the "3:1" ratio thing doesn't work the way you think it does. At the tactical level that's a traditional force level for achieving success at the point of contact. At the strategic level it is neither necessary nor possible under normal conditions. Most major land wars were fought with much less than 3:1 odds in favor of the attacker. For the Imperium against the Tau it's at least possible to get those odds, but a strategy that will fail utterly unless you vastly outnumber the enemy leaves a lot to be desired.
That's true, but I would argue that if you can't deploy sufficient resources to properly attack a million-man Tau force then you may as well negotiate a peace treaty. The 3:1 ratio is an ideal, but you want that even at the strategic level.

Moreover, attacking with a smaller force would just likely lead to defeat. Most wars do in fact end with either defeat or stalemate for the attacker precisely because they didn't have enough force to carry the war through.
The logistics needs of ten thousand foot infantry are less than the requirements of ten thousand mechanized infantry or armored troopers.

But you can't just replace ten thousand mechanized infantry with ten thousand foot infantry when fighting a highly mobile opponent, Zinegata, it won't work. You won't be able to react fast enough if they do something clever.
No, again, here's the thing:

If you don't have ten thousand mech infantry, then your logistical network is freed up to deploy much MORE regular infantry. That's the _point_ of using infantry over mech. You can deploy 2, 3, or even 5 times more infantry than mech; at least based on the regimental scaling.

So when I give up one mech regiment, that means I get 4x more infantry instead. With the equivalent of 4 regiments, I'll be able to hold a much greater amount of area than I would have with just one mech regiment.
You yourself have pointed out the need to place dense fortifications and strongpoints all over huge areas of land, and to heavily guard one's own supply routes with manpower-intensive static positions. Put all that together, and you're going to need a lot of men to secure yourself against a mobile opponent.
Not really. The nice thing about infantry is that they can entrench relatively quickly. You don't need to have them build concrete bunkers for you all over the place. Start with foxholes and HW posts (which can literally be done in a day unless the terrain is terrible), followed up by more permanent defenses as time and resources permit. The US army habitually set up these kinds of basic defenses while on the move.
Can you really say that the logistics of the many, many division-equivalent units you'll need to neutralize the mobility of an enemy mechanized division will all cost less than throwing in two of your own mechanized divisions?
Again, it depends on the terrain.

But as a general principle, I would say "Yes". Mechanized is fast, but it can't be everywhere. And we know for a fact that Tau mechanized forces are much faster than the Imperium's.

Say you have four supply depots. Would you rather have one mechanized regiment trying to hunt down a Tau Hunter Cadre, or just have four infantry regiments, each garrisoning one depot apiece?

If you do the former, the likely result is what happened in Taros: Your mech always arrives just in time to find a smoking depot.

I know this strategy is unglamarous and all, but sometimes admitting that your mechanized forces simply aren't up to snuff and that you must wear down the enemy's mechanized forces through standard infantry defense is the correct thing to do. That's what the Russians did at Kursk, albeit they had to set up defenses on an insane scale.
I think this is another idee fixe: you hear "mechanized forces have high logistics requirements" and seem not to be thinking about whether this mechanized force will have higher requirements than that foot infantry force, when that force is much, much more numerous.
I would say that a mech force will require more logistical support than several infantry regiments, for the simple reason that the mech will always require fuel, whereas an infantry regiment in ideal terrain may not need resupply at all. Unless you can show that Imperial 40K tanks are now so fuel-efficient that one LR or Chimera requires less consumables than several squads.
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7569
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by PainRack »

Zinegata wrote: Why do you think I asked for the terrain? ;)

Again, a strategy will differ depending on the terrain. Sending massed infantry to Taros would be stupid, because the water consumption would increase the supply requirements for the infantry making them impractical.
Errr. Dude. You keep saying this as if armies on the march don't need water supply. 3 liters of water a day is NOT a small amount for an army, and you're not going to save on the costs for vehicles because you need a larger vehicle arm to support your dispersed positions.
What I'm saying is that as a general principle, you should in fact be willing to deploy large numbers of infantry (which is logistically cheaper to maintain on the field than a tank) because the Tau's ability to suppress infantry is suspect. Again, people may claim they have artillery stored in a super secret warehouse somewhere, but that's something we seriously never see, and the Tau specifically state in their doctrine that they do NOT like these weapons and they'd rather send in their auxilaries.
And again, no its not. Tau railguns, missile pods, at close range flamers, the advent of burst cannons, airpower and the use of Skyray missiles mean they DO have the ability to suppress infantry. Its different from simply shooting one shell after another, but there's actually nothing to prevent the Tau from stockpiling combat loads similar to artillery guns now.
Infantry by contrast require only food and ammo reloads. In the case of lasguns, ammo reloads may not even be necessary. And food may not even be required if the infantry can forage. There's a reason why stuff like Sherman's March to the Sea was possible with infantry alone.
They need food, water, ammunition alone on a daily basis. And you STILL need fuel to support them, because you're using trucks to supply them. By actually dispersing your men more, you actually need MORE trucks or other forms of logistics, be it railways, human labour, horse or Servitors.

I love how Pain Rack keeps accusing me of being an idiot for not using mechanized forces... when his Taros battle plan does not even use mechanized forces at all and apparently relies entirely on Space Marines and air power.
....... Apparently, you ARE an idiot. The way to win on Taros was combined arms, and the first thing the Imps needed to do was to actually find the Tau enemy and reduce their mobility. They could do the first by simply doing what every commander need, gain air supremacy. Then actually SWEEP the enemy, and insert blocking forces via airpower to prevent them from escaping. And since this is a desert, your blocking forces would actually also need to be mobile, because without further information on the terrain available, Tau forces could just disengage and run away if you're using a fixed position.

Infantry is "Queen of Battle" for a reason, people. Mech does not magically render them irrelevant, and often times just having enough infantry (who have integrated anti-tank and anti-air weapons anyway) is what you need to deny a fast-moving enemy force. Plus they're much less costly in terms of logistical requirements in most terrain.
What everyone here is arguing is against your infantry heavy approach to defending and attacking, and believing this somehow neutralises the Tau because the Tau are deficient in combined arms.


You STILL haven't supported the argument the Tau are deficient in combined arms, in the aspect that they're unable to kill and suppress infantry. Tau weaponery and capabilities can do it, and furthermore,they shown it.

You also STILL haven't understood the objections, namely, that by scarificing mobility and also, the mobile firepower that tanks/mech bring, you losing a strategic ability to actually engage and pin down the Tau forces, which gives them MORE advantages.

All this because you argue that the Tau has superior AT abilities.

quote="Zinegata"]
Gunhead wrote:
Zinegata wrote: Like I keep saying, you should always have some tanks and mech forces (or ideally Air Cav). But force composition should be weighted MUCH more towards manpower.
Ideal force compositions vary wildly by terrain. Thumb rule of infantry is mechanized is the best then motorized then foot for fighting a large scale conventional war. Air Cav works too but for most large scale fights there's usually too little of it and has the traditional drawback of any air moved force of being lightly equipped compared to a land based force.

-Gunhead
Actually, World War 2 showed that infantry with some mech/tank support is still highly viable. Only the US and British armies were able to truly have a fully motorised/mech army (see the liberation of France for their biggest success), but in a grinding attritional battle (i.e. Hurtgen Forest, Normandy Bocage) these forces still had plenty of trouble against the German army, which at this point was mainly composed of infantry and some Panzers. Because ultimately, you need to send in infantry (supported by tanks) to dig out entrenched infantry, or use a really huge amount of crushing artillery fire with infantry following in its wake to sweep up the remnants.

Post-World War 2 has allowed the creation of vast fleets of mechanized armies for both NATO and Warsaw Pact, but there's a growing realization that maybe you don't need to have every infantryman carried to battle in a Bradley. Because again mech is very expensive to maintain and keep in the field.

But we aren't talking about a society that has enough surplus to make all of their troops mech infantry. We're talking about the Imperium, which tends to have a lot more infantry than mech because of the level of development in many of its worlds. So again, why not use them against an enemy that is lacking in the one weapon that is most effective against them - artillery? Certainly more sense than sending them into melee against the 'nids.[/quote]
No, they didn't. WW2 actually showed the exact OPPOSITE. US mechanised armies were never destroyed in a fullscale blitzkrieg, the closest that they ever came to was in the Battle of Kasserine pass, because they had the speed to disengage and withdraw from the Germans. Constrast this to the Germans and Soviet experience. The range of the German panzer armies dictated their offensive reach, the miracle of the infantry divisions marching to contain the Russian pockets otherwise. If the Germans had have more mechanised/motorised infantry units, they would not had to rely on their phemenonal marching ability.

Furthermore, virtually every country in the world that's engaged in conventional battle USES a form of mechanised infantry. Light infantry roles, outside of rapid response due to their low weight transport and security/counter-insurgency is now useless.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

PainRack wrote:Errr. Dude. You keep saying this as if armies on the march don't need water supply. 3 liters of water a day is NOT a small amount for an army, and you're not going to save on the costs for vehicles because you need a larger vehicle arm to support your dispersed positions.
How many times have you missed me saying terrain is important? And it's not practical to send infantry to Taros due to water concerns? Oh yeah, every single time.

You're a complete waste of time.
No, they didn't. WW2 actually showed the exact OPPOSITE. US mechanised armies were never destroyed in a fullscale blitzkrieg
Actually, the Battle of the Bulge was mostly won by US infantry forces holding their positions against German tanks and infantry. And you are not refuting the Normandy or Hurtgen examples at all, wherein the US mech forces were stopped called by fixed defenses, so your statement is outright wrong.
....... Apparently, you ARE an idiot. The way to win on Taros was combined arms,
No, no, no. That's not what you said. You said:
Use the Space Marines and orbital support to gain air supremacy by hitting the bases, with air supremacy, you actually know where the enemy is moving at any time, especially in a desert environment
In short, SPESS MAHRINES. Because once the SPESS MAHRINES have taken the bases will have AIR SUPERIORITY. And SPESS MAHRINES and AIR SUPERIORITY cancels out all the Tau magic.

So again, stop wasting my time. You keep wailing about using mech infantry when the most important component of your plan was actually Space Marines and Air power.
Last edited by Zinegata on 2012-04-25 12:18am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lPeregrine
Jedi Knight
Posts: 673
Joined: 2005-01-08 01:10am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by lPeregrine »

Zinegata wrote:Aside from the Manticore and the Hydra, none of the Imperial tanks actually have any integral AA capability that's any better than a machinegun.
Right, but those are the IG's two most effective anti-aircraft weapons. If you aren't bringing Hydras or Manticores you have severely limited ability to deal with enemy aircraft, and zero ability to deal with high altitude Remoras/bombers/etc.
Moreover, we know the Hydra has a towed variant that can be used by the infantry. So even if the IG infantry don't have MANPADs, we know that they can tug along some towed AA guns, and having towed SAM batteries wouldn't be out of the question as well.
It's hardly an infantry weapon. It's a standard Hydra/Manticore turret, just mounted on a fixed platform instead of a tank, and you need a Chimera-hull towing vehicle to move it anywhere. It's almost as big as a tank, it probably costs as much as a tank, but it can't move like a tank. If your goal is to make Tau anti-tank weapons ineffective due to lack of targets, taking the fixed platforms directly contradicts that goal.
You are forgetting that a mechanized force requires fuel. Think it through again dude. Mechanized infantry have greater supply requirements than regular infantry. Without fuel, mech infantry is just infantry. Imperial tanks still run on gas.
Yes, but you need a lot fewer of them since you aren't covering the entire planet in conscripts. The mechanized force can actually move around, so besides the increased effectiveness in a specific battle you need fewer mechanized units to cover the same territory. If each mechanized unit takes five times the supplies but I only need a tenth of the units compared to the conscript horde, I've just cut my supply needs in half.
Zinegata wrote:Say you have four supply depots. Would you rather have one mechanized regiment trying to hunt down a Tau Hunter Cadre, or just have four infantry regiments, each garrisoning one depot apiece?
One mechanized regiment, since the mechanized regiment might actually be able to catch and engage the hunter cadre before the Remoras locate the supply depots and drop a seeker missile strike on them. Garrisoning against an enemy with a massive mobility advantage and the ability to drop precision strikes on any fixed target (effectively) at will is just plain stupid.
If you do the former, the likely result is what happened in Taros: Your mech always arrives just in time to find a smoking depot.
The reason this happened on Taros was because the Imperium sat around doing nothing, and then tried to slowly march infantry hundreds of miles through the desert. The Tau had plenty of time to locate the Imperial supply lines, infiltrate stealth units to kill them, etc. End result: long before the Imperium reaches its objective the Tau have blown up all of their water.

A mechanized/air cav/space marine assault launched from closer to the objective and closing in on it at the full speed of a mechanized unit might have actually reached the capital and been able to do anything, simply because the Tau would not have had enough time to cut all of the supply lines before they were forced into battle.
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

lPeregrine wrote:It's hardly an infantry weapon. It's a standard Hydra/Manticore turret, just mounted on a fixed platform instead of a tank, and you need a Chimera-hull towing vehicle to move it anywhere. It's almost as big as a tank, it probably costs as much as a tank, but it can't move like a tank. If your goal is to make Tau anti-tank weapons ineffective due to lack of targets, taking the fixed platforms directly contradicts that goal.
"Infantry" is not necessarily "Civil War Era infantry" you know, and even World War 1 Infantry Divisions had towed elements such as artillery. You also don't need a Chimera to tow a tracked gun, just a light transport truck or a Trojan would do; which we see in the Guard shuffling supplies around.

It is also NOT as big as a tank, and not as costly as a tank. Again: Tank = Hull, Propulsion, Armor, Hydra Flak system. The towed version is JUST the Hydra Flak system plus two wheels.

Your only real correct point is that it'd be easier to spot than a lascannon team, but it's still a smaller and better concealed target than a tank (again, no hull) so it doesn't contradict my goal at all.
Yes, but you need a lot fewer of them since you aren't covering the entire planet in conscripts.
Being able to move somewhere quickly is not the same as actually BEING everywhere, particularly when the enemy is faster than you and can strike and fade before the cavalry arrives.
If each mechanized unit takes five times the supplies but I only need a tenth of the units compared to the conscript horde, I've just cut my supply needs in half.
Except by taking 1/10 the units you actually end up defending nothing at all.
One mechanized regiment, since the mechanized regiment might actually be able to catch and engage the hunter cadre before the Remoras locate the supply depots and drop a seeker missile strike on them. Garrisoning against an enemy with a massive mobility advantage and the ability to drop precision strikes on any fixed target (effectively) at will is just plain stupid.
Uh, right. And how will the Imperial Mechanized catch up with the much faster Tau hover forces again? How will they again find these Cadres? And you're again assuming that they can't just drop a precision strike on your mech unit instead and then wipe out all 4 depots at their own leisure?

Again, if you're assuming Tau magic can drop missiles on depots easily and get past infantry defenses, then tanks are just as vulnerable and just as dead.

If we instead assume Tau don't have magic, then infantry can in fact effectively defend their depots - because they can actually shoot down drones with fixed AA positions (which can be shifted around anyway) and they can prevent precision strikes because they'll be able to extend an actual perimeter around the depot since they're not merely a token force.

Mech meanwhile will still have trouble even finding or reaching the Tau forces in time to engage them - and at the minimum they'll need to significantly outnumber the Tau to ensure they don't escape. It's very hard to pin down very mobile enemy forces with your own mobile forces if they're not as fast.
The reason this happened on Taros was because the Imperium sat around doing nothing, and then tried to slowly march infantry hundreds of miles through the desert. The Tau had plenty of time to locate the Imperial supply lines, infiltrate stealth units to kill them, etc. End result: long before the Imperium reaches its objective the Tau have blown up all of their water.
Except this is what's gonna happen also if you send forward a huge mech force, because you'll need an even bigger supply network to keep the tanks fuelled. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the Taros forces "marched" across the desert were in fact mech and tank units.
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7569
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by PainRack »

Zinegata wrote: How many times have you missed me saying terrain is important? And it's not practical to send infantry to Taros due to water concerns? Oh yeah, every single time.

You're a complete waste of time.
Dude. 3 liters of water is for NORMAL operations in temperate operations!

Desert operations is SEVEN liters.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/a ... -ope.shtml
In short, SPESS MAHRINES. Because once the SPESS MAHRINES have taken the bases will have AIR SUPERIORITY. And SPESS MAHRINES and AIR SUPERIORITY cancels out all the Tau magic.
...... Exactly.... Because the Tau advantages in mobility still need to be cancelled out. What makes you think that this mobility is going to disappear?


And because the damn forum ate up my post, here it is again.
Not really. The nice thing about infantry is that they can entrench relatively quickly. You don't need to have them build concrete bunkers for you all over the place. Start with foxholes and HW posts (which can literally be done in a day unless the terrain is terrible), followed up by more permanent defenses as time and resources permit. The US army habitually set up these kinds of basic defenses while on the move.
Several hours of digging in is now considered quickly?
The IG HW emplacements of sandbags require several hours alone, although its possible to cheat and do it in one. And that's after the digging shellscrape.
Oh, and none of this has perimeter sensors or any actual camouflague. That will require a camouflague unit to have the netting and other gizmos....

That actually means several hours, and a full day if you dig in more than just a basic fortification every day.... And all this means is that you have a position that will be nothing more than a speedbump for an army supported with tanks, artillery and airpower.

So, that's what? Only several hours a day to actually move? Then 4 hours for basic shellscrape/foxholes, another hour digging in or building up one HW sandbagged... How much time is left?

But as a general principle, I would say "Yes". Mechanized is fast, but it can't be everywhere. And we know for a fact that Tau mechanized forces are much faster than the Imperium's.

Say you have four supply depots. Would you rather have one mechanized regiment trying to hunt down a Tau Hunter Cadre, or just have four infantry regiments, each garrisoning one depot apiece?

If you do the former, the likely result is what happened in Taros: Your mech always arrives just in time to find a smoking depot.
Dude. This wasn't what happened on Taros. They hit the supply convoys enroute. You know, basic CONVOY security?

This is the thing. A MSR from division to brigade and battalion can stretch tens to hundreds of kilometers long. You move miilitary forces up and down the routes, supply convoys up and down it. Ideally, it requires waypoints to hold and divert traffic, especially extraneous traffic like civilian refugees, alternate routes to divert jammed convoys and etc and other units to maintain the MSR, from engineering to clear away obstacles like broken down vehicles, to MPs for traffic control. All this expands the area you need to defend.

To defend this route, you're suggesting that you cover the entire approach by fire, up to sixty hexes apart so that your lascannons are mutually supporting. You need depth to take out coordinated attacks, so that's what?2-3 lascannons per position? Then you need infantry to defend this strongpoint, so how many are you going to put? A squad? That makes them vulnerable to commando tactics. The IG organisational chart places a HW unit per platoon IIRC, so, that's 2-3 platoons every strongpoint, sixty hexes apart, on BOTH sides of your ONE convoy route.

Any expansion in area due to the details above and just the need to add more routes for capacity and the area you need to cover by fire expands, not expotentially but it will expand. And this ignores the terrain and assumes it all just wide open plains or etc and areas that provide unobstructed lines of fire. If you have dead ground surrounding the route, that means you need to place MORE units to cover the dead ground.


Just HOW MUCH MEN ARE YOU TAKING AWAY FROM THE FRONTLINE?!?!?!?!?!

And before Taros come up again, the advance was dismounted, because the idiot general didn't want to lose more men/Chimaeras to the Tau long range weapons. Whereas the right idea would had been to send up more recce forces, like the Sentinels, or even the Elysians and other high mobility forces that they had to recce the route.......... But nope. Walk gentlemen! And here's a pace stick to measure your distance!

I know this strategy is unglamarous and all, but sometimes admitting that your mechanized forces simply aren't up to snuff and that you must wear down the enemy's mechanized forces through standard infantry defense is the correct thing to do. That's what the Russians did at Kursk, albeit they had to set up defenses on an insane scale.
You mean when the Russians shoved multiple tank armies at the Germans in a counter-attack? There's a difference between what the Russians did and what you're claiming. What they did was to use defences to defray an enemy offensive, until they were vulnerable to a Russian counter attack. And despite the Germans greater AT abilities and the Pryhic Russian losses, the Russians didn't just abandon armoured warfare. They doubled down instead.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
User avatar
lPeregrine
Jedi Knight
Posts: 673
Joined: 2005-01-08 01:10am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by lPeregrine »

Zinegata wrote:You also don't need a Chimera to tow a tracked gun, just a light transport truck or a Trojan would do; which we see in the Guard shuffling supplies around.
A Trojan is a Chimera equipped for towing and cargo transport. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-4 ... E-KIT.html
It is also NOT as big as a tank, and not as costly as a tank. Again: Tank = Hull, Propulsion, Armor, Hydra Flak system. The towed version is JUST the Hydra Flak system plus two wheels.
Towed version of the Hydra: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-4 ... TFORM.html

Add in the Trojan that you need to haul it around, and you have something that probably costs almost as much as a full Hydra.
Your only real correct point is that it'd be easier to spot than a lascannon team, but it's still a smaller and better concealed target than a tank (again, no hull) so it doesn't contradict my goal at all.
The premise of your strategy is that the Tau have such overwhelming anti-tank superiority that you need to remove all tanks, and force the Tau to waste railgun shots on killing single guardsmen. If you bring large weapon platforms like the Hydra, you just offered the Tau anti-tank weapons good targets again and defeated the entire purpose of removing all of your vehicles.
Uh, right. And how will the Imperial Mechanized catch up with the much faster Tau hover forces again?
Use Valkyries to deploy anti-tank infantry units along likely retreat routes, then attack with my mechanized infantry and supporting tanks. If the Tau run away instead of engaging, they get to fight dug-in infantry with lascannons, except those lascannons are actually in a position to threaten something.

The conscript horde, on the other hand, never gets to this point. All it can do is sit around uselessly while the Tau kill them from a safe distance and/or ignore them until they run out of food and water.
Again, if you're assuming Tau magic can drop missiles on depots easily and get past infantry defenses, then tanks are just as vulnerable and just as dead.
You're ignoring the critical element of TIME.

Just having stealth units doesn't magically give you the knowledge of the location of every enemy supply depot, convoy routes and schedules, etc. However, the longer you sit around doing nothing, the longer the stealth units have to find that information and put it to good use. Since the mechanized force doesn't have to waste months walking from point A to point B, they might actually get the job done before the magic seeker missile drones are able to finish blowing up all the convoys.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the Taros forces "marched" across the desert were in fact mech and tank units.
The point isn't the exact percentage of infantry with transports available, it's that the entire army was limited to the walking speed of its infantry. End result: they took way too long to reach any useful objective, and the Tau had plenty of time to blow up all of their supply lines.

Once the Imperium finally showed a bit of sense and abandoned the walking infantry in favor of a combined assault by the mechanized infantry, space marines and titans, they were able to push the Tau back and advance at a reasonable rate. Unfortunately, this realization happened far too late, and by that point the war had already been lost.
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

PainRack wrote:Dude. 3 liters of water is for NORMAL operations in temperate operations!

Desert operations is SEVEN liters.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/a ... -ope.shtml
*sigh* You are an idiot.

Again, IDIOT, why do you think I said it is NOT practical?

Screw it. No more replies to you. You can't even recognize that you're actually supporting my position by posting that; all you're doing is to add more confusion and nonsense.
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

lPeregrine wrote:
Zinegata wrote:You also don't need a Chimera to tow a tracked gun, just a light transport truck or a Trojan would do; which we see in the Guard shuffling supplies around.
A Trojan is a Chimera equipped for towing and cargo transport. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-4 ... E-KIT.html
I said "light transport truck OR Trojan". 'Cause these are, you know, very common.
Towed version of the Hydra: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-4 ... TFORM.html

Add in the Trojan that you need to haul it around, and you have something that probably costs almost as much as a full Hydra.
Except you don't necessarily need to use a Trojan. Again, trucks or trojans.

Secondly, after setting up the AA gun the transport can now move to other duties. It is a much more logistics-friendly setup than one Hydra Flak tank, which will probably require another complete Trojan to follow it around all the time to keep it supplied with fuel, ammo, and spares.
The premise of your strategy is that the Tau have such overwhelming anti-tank superiority that you need to remove all tanks, and force the Tau to waste railgun shots on killing single guardsmen. If you bring large weapon platforms like the Hydra, you just offered the Tau anti-tank weapons good targets again and defeated the entire purpose of removing all of your vehicles.
Again. Not "remove all tanks". And again, you ignore that a towed Hydra flak piece is still MUCH smaller than a full Hydra Flak tank.
Use Valkyries to deploy anti-tank infantry units along likely retreat routes,
Oh, goodie, somebody who finally agrees with me that Air Cav is needed. :lol:
then attack with my mechanized infantry and supporting tanks. If the Tau run away instead of engaging, they get to fight dug-in infantry with lascannons, except those lascannons are actually in a position to threaten something.
Except of course you just fulfilled my prophecy: You need considerably more mobile forces to actually pin down and destroy the Tau tanks. At the minimum, you're proposing a 2:1 force ratio (one Air Cav force, and one Mechanized force, against a roughly "equivalent" Cadre).

In real practice, it takes about a 3:1 to 5:1 ratio. Even the US Army who used Air Cav against the Viet Cong (who were moving on foot) often had to use a 5:1 ratio in concert with Air Cav just to pin them down and prevent an escape.
The conscript horde, on the other hand, never gets to this point. All it can do is sit around uselessly while the Tau kill them from a safe distance and/or ignore them until they run out of food and water.
Yes, but that's because your strategy is obsessed around running after and killing the Tau, and ignoring that you don't always have to chase them to win.
Just having stealth units doesn't magically give you the knowledge of the location of every enemy supply depot, convoy routes and schedules, etc. However, the longer you sit around doing nothing, the longer the stealth units have to find that information and put it to good use. Since the mechanized force doesn't have to waste months walking from point A to point B, they might actually get the job done before the magic seeker missile drones are able to finish blowing up all the convoys.
Except that World War 2 experience shows that mech infantry don't actually greatly outpace marching infantry in big campaigns, because the mech has to stop periodically to refuel and a high-speed tempo of operations is hard to maintain. If the infantry will take "months" marching to an objective, then at the minimum the mech will take "weeks", which is still plenty of time for the Tau to hit the static supply depots in the rear.
The point isn't the exact percentage of infantry with transports available, it's that the entire army was limited to the walking speed of its infantry. End result: they took way too long to reach any useful objective, and the Tau had plenty of time to blow up all of their supply lines.

Once the Imperium finally showed a bit of sense and abandoned the walking infantry in favor of a combined assault by the mechanized infantry, space marines and titans, they were able to push the Tau back and advance at a reasonable rate. Unfortunately, this realization happened far too late, and by that point the war had already been lost.
Well, okay, I get what you're saying - which is that you advocate a lightning assault, to wipe out the Tau and take the objectives before supply attenuation becomes an issue.

However, I'm countering by noting that Imperial Mech forces may not exactly be suited for that.

With guys like the Narmenian Armoured and Pardus Tankers, sure, a lightning assault battle is a feasible plan. With Space Marines and Titans, certainly that works.

But most Imperial mech and even tank units are not necessarily ready for that. They're not trained to do lightning advances - which is probably part of the reason why the Taros advance was so slow.

That's why I employed the Kursk analogy. The Soviets had a ton of armor. In theory, they could engage the Germans in a massed tank battle.

But their forces are simply not structured to fight these same kinds of battles. That's why they ultimately decided on a defensive battle - forcing the Germans to chew through their conscript infantry, before clobbering the enemy armor with their own armor during the counter-attack phase. It's not the ideal battle plan, but it's the workable battle plan given the general capacity of Imperial Mech forces.
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7569
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by PainRack »

Zinegata wrote:
PainRack wrote:Dude. 3 liters of water is for NORMAL operations in temperate operations!

Desert operations is SEVEN liters.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/a ... -ope.shtml
*sigh* You are an idiot.

Again, IDIOT, why do you think I said it is NOT practical?

Screw it. No more replies to you. You can't even recognize that you're actually supporting my position by posting that; all you're doing is to add more confusion and nonsense.
Oh shit. You're pulling the same stunt again.

What WAS your point? That infantry forces need miminal resupply compared to mech/tanks? That's nonsensical. For every soldier, they need to supply 3 liters of water daily. While dry rations could be packed and stored, well, a soldier could possibly carry 2-3 days worth at the cost of other equipment like batteries or a slower march, you need to send him 3 liters DAILY. He can get by on 1 liter, but that means you can't make him do hard labour constantly and you can't have any wastage, along with no cooking and no showering.

You could store water locally in cisterns, but that means you aren't advancing, and your initial point was the IG ATTACKING the Tau with infantry, which we have actually diverged away in favour of the Tau will attack my positions because Zinnegata has the men to make sure they do so.

Or are you now conceding the point? That you now agree that supplying a large infantry army logistically is more difficult than a smaller mechanised force?
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

PainRack wrote:...
Again, no more replies for you, because all you're doing is to accuse me of stuff I never actually proposed. I have literally said massed infantry won't work on Taros due to logistical concerns at least three times already and you STILL accuse me of the opposite by showing that you have to more than double the water requirements in the desert.

That's just complete reading comprehension fail on your part. Do I have to say it seventy times before you get it through your skull that I said "Fighting with massed infantry in a desert is a bad idea due to logistics issues"?

Also, idiot, I did not say soldiers have to stop drinking. I did say however, that they can forage in some terrain. Foraging includes water. What, you think Sherman's March to the Sea involved soldiers who didn't drink water?

Fucking idiot.
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7569
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by PainRack »

Zinegata wrote:Except of course you just fulfilled my prophecy: You need considerably more mobile forces to actually pin down and destroy the Tau tanks. At the minimum, you're proposing a 2:1 force ratio (one Air Cav force, and one Mechanized force, against a roughly "equivalent" Cadre).

In real practice, it takes about a 3:1 to 5:1 ratio. Even the US Army who used Air Cav against the Viet Cong (who were moving on foot) often had to use a 5:1 ratio in concert with Air Cav just to pin them down and prevent an escape.
Dude. When you say remove tanks from the attack and use infantry to defend, but still have tanks and armoured vehicles for........ something, its a TOTALLY different thing from saying I believe in combined arms.

Or even an infantry heavy approach.

This is what an infantry approach to battle is. Form up in the FUP. Hit the position with artillery. Advance to the line, then attack, using a mixture of infantry tactics(flanking or etc), overrun the position, dig in and defend it against the ineveitabe counter-attack. Once I'm out of reach of my supporting fire, dig in permanently until they move forward and rinse and repeat.

An infantry approach is NOT using airmobility to block off escape and using infantry forces to pin them down. And even in THIS scenario, an armoured/mechanised force will still have advantages due to their speed, mobility and firepower. And yes, the first two is different.

Except that World War 2 experience shows that mech infantry don't actually greatly outpace marching infantry in big campaigns, because the mech has to stop periodically to refuel and a high-speed tempo of operations is hard to maintain. If the infantry will take "months" marching to an objective, then at the minimum the mech will take "weeks", which is still plenty of time for the Tau to hit the static supply depots in the rear.
Except that infantry led attacks don't overrun and destroy a mobile ENEMY. It leaves it able to fight and counter-attack.

That's why I employed the Kursk analogy. The Soviets had a ton of armor. In theory, they could engage the Germans in a massed tank battle.

But their forces are simply not structured to fight these same kinds of battles. That's why they ultimately decided on a defensive battle - forcing the Germans to chew through their conscript infantry, before clobbering the enemy armor with their own armor during the counter-attack phase. It's not the ideal battle plan, but it's the workable battle plan given the general capacity of Imperial Mech forces.
Kursk was a defensive battle, and nobody here is suggesting that the IG don't use COMBINED ARMS. Which is what your rebuttal is hooking on. And the issues with fighting a war like this has been pointed out to you already. There is no reason for the Tau to deliberately attack your prepared positions in every battle. Kursk itself was a strategical failure, because the Germans wanted to shorten their defensive line by overruning the enemy.

Remember your initial post was that you would ATTACK the Tau with an INFANTRY ARMY. If this means landing a huge army and defending the area, the Tau are just going to sit back and blast you to smithereens with shoot and scoot.

Again, no more replies for you, because all you're doing is to accuse me of stuff I never actually proposed. I have literally said massed infantry won't work on Taros due to logistical concerns at least three times already and you STILL accuse me of the opposite by showing that you have to more than double the water requirements in the desert.

That's just complete reading comprehension fail on your part.
DUDE. Maybe this is a result of the multiple posters you're replying to, but I made the argument that supplying a large number of conscript troops would be difficult.

You argued that resupply would be miminal.

I pointed out that water alone is an issue.

You argued that this isn't Taros.

I pointed out that it doesn't matter, you STILL need to supply water, and you need 3 liters.

You argued that this isn't Taros.

I pointed out that you're insane, I'm not talking about Taros. Desert operations would take 7 liters.

And now you're quoting about Taros again?
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Zinegata »

PainRack wrote:DUDE. Maybe this is a result of the multiple posters you're replying to, but I made the argument that supplying a large number of conscript troops would be difficult.

You argued that resupply would be miminal.

I pointed out that water alone is an issue.

You argued that this isn't Taros.

I pointed out that it doesn't matter, you STILL need to supply water, and you need 3 liters.
Okay, last chance:

I did not argue "resupply will be minimal"

I said "resupply will be minimal in comparison to mech"

If you had any common sense, then you'd realize that you need to compare the supply requirements of a tank, and the supply requirements of an infantryman, if you are actually going to address this argument.

NOT just quote "This is how much water an infantryman needs!". That's the supply requirement of the infantry. And again, with mechanized infantry, you have to add their fuel requirements on top of that (and note I'm not even counting spare parts yet)

So, to review:

Let's accept that an infantryman requires 3 litres of water a day. I argued that you can reduce this in some terrain by foraging, but let's ignore that for now.

A US Army M1 Abrams tank has a fuel tank that has a capacity of 500 gallons, and this is enough fuel for roughly 8 hours of driving at full speed.

Again. That's 500 gallons of fuel for 1 tank. That translates to about 1,850 litres (assuming 3.7 liters per gallon).

In short, the amount of fuel consumed by an M1 Abrams in 8 hours is about the same volume of water that can supply more than 600 soldiers in a single day.

This is why I asked Simon Jester if he knew of Warhammer 40K tank fuel efficiency stats. Because maybe in the Grim Darkness of the far future they don't have such gas-guzzlers. But the above should already demonstrate that the vehicles in a mechanized formation consume a HUGE amount of supplies even if you account for fuel alone (and not other stuff like spare parts), which could instead be used to supply a greater number of infantry.

Now do you get it?

So again: The logistical requirement to supply a mechanized infantry regiment is higher than of an infantry regiment. To the point it may be possible to supply two, three, four, or even five infantry regiments using the logistics tail to supply ONE mechanized regiment. Show some actual numbers to show it ain't the case if you're sore about it.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Imperial armour: Siege of Vraks analysis

Post by Simon_Jester »

The argument is that against a mobile opponent, four foot regiments do not equal one mobile regiment.

Again, you will be endlessly strung out trying to protect large areas of territory against an opponent who gets to choose where to hit you. You will need much more than a 4:1 numerical advantage to win under those conditions. At 1:1 odds you would be predictably wiped out because the enemy gets to have recon patrols watching your every move and you can't chase them away. The enemy gets to choose ambush positions, zip in front of you and place land mines, zip behind you and blow up your food and water supplies, and so on. If you march forward you will be cut off and wrecked. If you stay put you will be surrounded, pinned to your entrenchments and left to wither on the vine.

At 4:1 odds you have more men with which to protect yourself- but even so, unless the scale of the engagement is enormous, you can't physically fill all the land with men and dug-in defensive positions to enough density to defeat the enemy's armor. If you launch an offensive the enemy can, again, keep tabs on your every move, pick ambush positions, booby-trap the positions you attempt to occupy, and generally make your life a protracted living hell. You cannot force them to give battle except by marching soldiers across entire continents, which takes much time and in which time much may happen.

It's not that it's impossible to win a campaign this way, massed foot infantry against a mechanized force, given the basic condition of UNLIMITED MANPOWER TO CRUSH A SMALL FLOWER like Purple said.

It's just... you're really, literally shooting yourself in the foot by hampering your own mobility this much for the sake of raw numbers and not having tanks. Especially since the "no tanks" purpose is equally well served by a typical armored cavalry regiment with its Chimeras (which, incidentally, can be armed with ATGMs and made into surprisingly effective counters to Tau armor in sufficient numbers) and other light vehicles. Sure, the Tau will railgun a few APCs. If you're willing to write off the services of hundreds of thousands of troops for months at a time, surely you can afford to lose some APCs.

Please, just... take a step back and reconsider, because from outside your head you look like you've got a really spectacular case of tunnel vision going here.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Post Reply