# IG compared to Mordern Day millitary



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

1)Vahallan, Cadian, Steel Legion, Catachan, Krieg, or Tallarn single Guardsmen Compare to American, British, French, China, or Russian Soilder? Pick any and mix match. Whos better Train, Equiped, and Physicaly Fit? 

2)Leman Russ and varients vs M1A2 Challenger, Liepard 2A6, or T-90 in a straight battle? Again pick your choice in Long Range and Close Range.

3)Vulture, Lightnings, and Thunderbolts compared to the Euro Fighter Typhoon, F22 Raptor, and the F35?

5)Finnaly Storm Troopers/Karsikans vs other Countries Special Forces (Seals, Spetsnaz, ect.)

So with any of these 4 matchups who comes out on top in your opponion? In no way am I asking about Imperial Navy with its awsome Orbital Bombardments, Im looking at these ground ponders.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Warlock in Training said:


> 1)Vahallan, Cadian, Steel Legion, Catachan, Krieg, or Tallarn single Guardsmen Compare to American, British, French, China, or Russian Soilder? Pick any and mix match. Whos better Train, Equiped, and Physicaly Fit?


Well Catachan obviously thrash any nation when it comes to Jungle warfare, that's a given. Probably a similar scenario with the Tallarn in a Desert environment. Both in their own way are by neccessity of a greater physical fitness than all but the most demented 'modern' soliders.

The Krieg is pretty much screwed one on one against all but Chinese conscripts (screwed against their professional soldiers still), the Vallhallan is a bit of a wild card but on the whole I'd say that excluding Winter terrain- where he might have the edge- he'd be in a similar boat to the guardsman from Krieg.

Steel Legion? Better than some soldiers from any force, worse than others but on the whole I'd say roughly equal.

The Cadian is one-to-one simply better than any other 'basic' grunt from any of the nations listed.



Warlock in Training said:


> 2)Leman Russ and varients vs M1A2 Challenger, Liepard 2A6, or T-90 in a straight battle? Again pick your choice in Long Range and Close Range.


Bit difficult here but if we go by the info in the Imperial Armour books, and indepth calculations provided by better men than I, then the Imperial tanks are about as much use a wet paper bag in comparison to modern tanks in all but their locomotive abilities (Imperial tanks being multi-fuel oriented, with a rough and ready reliability).



Warlock in Training said:


> 3)Vulture, Valkery, or Vendetta compared to the Euro Fighter Typhoon, F22 Raptor, and the F35?


This match up is retarded.
You've put 3 Imperial gunships who couldn't even be charitably compared to a Harrier up against 3 Fighter-Bombers.
A better match up would have been Imperial Lightnings and Thunderbolts.



Warlock in Training said:


> 5)Finnaly Storm Troopers/Karsikans vs other Countries Special Forces (Seals, Spetsnaz, ect.)


Horses for courses.
If you want the most ruthless bastards to really kick in someone's face and not care about the way it's done then Storm Troopers/Kasrkin everytime- otherwise it's pretty much even (certainly if they're Imperial Storm Troopers, it gets murky if you use different world's local variations).


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks Baron, I edited the Jets as I confess im not to keen on 40k Aircraft.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I would say the "stereotypical" Imperial Guard can be summed up as "19th century British Regimental structure meets World War II Soviet Red Army disciplinary and political officers".

From there, yeah, several famous units within the Guard have their own flavor. The Death Korps of Krieg most closely correlate with WWI German soldiers. The classic, Czarist Russian feel falls to the Vostroyans. The Valhallans also strike me as semi-Russian, though more along the lines of the WWII winter armies. Tallarn Guardsmen are desert-fighters, and were probably modeled after WWI-era Arabian troops. The Steel Legion and the Cadians strike me as multicultural, and not really patterned after any one military.

Man for man, I imagine Imperial Guardsmen are more fit and better equipped (table-top rules aside, flak armor, lasguns, etc., are always shown to be superior to equipment equivalent to ours in the novels). I don't think most of them are as well trained as infantrymen in our top-tier militaries, though. Catachans, Cadians, Tallarns, and other exceptions might exist, but I think most Guardsmen aren't so valued as to merit superior tactical training. See their typical tactics for that.

Imperial armored vehicles certainly surpass ours in firepower, but lag significantly when it comes to mobility and speed. Armor-wise? It all depends on whether the steel used in their armor is somehow enhanced. Otherwise, our own tanks are much better in that regard (though cannons and other guns from a Leman Russ, etc., could go through it like a joke all the same).

Even if you wanted to compare their gunships to our fighter-bombers, you have to remember something... Thunderhawks _can escape planetary orbit._ That kind of speed makes a mockery out of ANYTHING we have. Assuming they have the kind of targeting and detection systems it would make sense for them to have, that means they would also enjoy first-look/first-kill capability.

Special forces vs Kasrkin and Stormtroopers? I don't know. Both of the 40k examples are mostly shock-troopers by trade. Our Special Forces/SEALs/SAS, etc., are typically small units that focus either on insurgency or limited, clandestine objectives.

I think that the 40k troops would (again) be better equipped, but depending on the formation our own guys might have the edge in tactics and coordination.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Awsome, thnx for the input.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

I think 40k troops are much more likely to shrug off casualty numbers, that would break, modern day military's. For one thing, every time I read anything on any 40k regiments training procedures, almost every one has way more brutal training NCO's then most western military's.


----------



## Keen4e (Apr 19, 2010)

I do not think such a comparison would make any sense. Imperial Guard is a mix of different historical armies. If you look into details: cavalry, tanks with WW1 design, guns with bayonets and so on would not stand any chance to our modern equipment let alone the equipment developed in the next 40 000 years (if human race will still exist) and yet Imperial guard is able to fight technologically advanced races like the tau or the eldar, which does not make any sense if their technologies are compared to ours. 
My point is: 40K is a fictional universe and therefore it is no use comparing it to reality.


----------



## Sturmovic (Jun 18, 2011)

I think it's left vague, because a clear definition is impossible. On one hand, it's the grim and dark future with power swords, lasers and baneblades. On the other it's IG we're talking about. I think the 40k fluff is focussed on the feel of the thing, rather than the precise facts.

Take the lasgun for example-is some books it tears limbs clean off people, in others they're absolute rubbish.


----------



## Buttons (Jan 23, 2012)

Baron Spikey said:


> The Krieg is pretty much screwed one on one against all but Chinese conscripts (screwed against their professional soldiers still).
> 
> Steel Legion? Better than some soldiers from any force, worse than others but on the whole I'd say roughly equal.


I really have to disagree with both of these, particularly Armageddon. While they (Death Korps) might not be as skilled as a modern soldier (I still think they might be, simply because it doesn't take too long to train a modern soldier, USMC has like 13 weeks boot camp), they have a level of determination that most modern soldiers cannot hope to match. The Imperial Guard is already well known for being determined beyond almost any modern military, and the Death Korps is more determined than most Guard regiments. While it won't win them the battle the sheer determination might give them enough of an edge to win.

As for the Steel Legion, they have had to fight off two Ork invasions, they are a largely mechanized military like modern militaries, in such an environment any bad soldiers would probably die very quickly. I think your average Steel Legionnaire is probably more akin (in skill) to a veteran of Stalingrad or Okinawa than an American, British, Russian, or Chinese soldier currently serving.


----------



## Falkenhyn (Jan 15, 2012)

mob16151 said:


> I think 40k troops are much more likely to shrug off casualty numbers, that would break, modern day military's. For one thing, every time I read anything on any 40k regiments training procedures, almost every one has way more brutal training NCO's then most western military's.


Really? I bet you never had to deal with a training Corporal or a RSM they are the hardest SOBs youll ever meet, a RSM will rip somes leg off and beat them half to death with it and then scream at them for not running fast enough lol.

Well not rip it all the way off but you know what im saying. We have hard dudes in the army and in infantry schools is where you find all the psyco hard arse NCO's


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

On a unit to unit bases I have no idea how things would stack up directly as the tech specs in 40k are as expected incredibly vague, but we generally due know that somethings we have now are in fact better then stuff in 40k.

Tanks, Most US or german made tanks these days have incredibly sophisticated armor and defense systems with inbuilt defenses against assault and homing devices (Imagine if IG tanks had built in explosive charges designed to clear of assault orcs). Also many modern day tanks have the equivalent of tau seeker missiles in that they have remote guided wire fire missiles that can hit the weakest part of any given tanks armor. Also most modern day tanks have aim assisting mechanism and stabilizers so they can fire well moving at their top speed and still hit the mark.

I can't talk about how actual guns and gear match up as without specific stats on velocity and composition of rounds, but considering the IG don't have/use these techs they are already at a huge tactical disadvantage in armor engagements.

Infantry.

IG have the mentality of nazi germany, and space technology they probably are on par or better in a straight up fight just because they could just keep throwing people at the problem till it went away, and the IG would not bat a eye lash at the huge casualty rates. However they have once again a huge tactical disadvantage compared to the most modern of our soldiers in that land warrior and blind firing guns are now being integrated into most modern militaries, meaning every soldier would have a up to the minute sit rap on enemy movements and locations, and the ability to relay that info to artillery and support units. Also nightvision and limited thermals are now seeing wider use meaning in a night fight situation most IG units would be at a huge disadvantage. 

So all in all we have the tactical edge they have the numbers and some weird counterproductive space tech. Really not a surprise considering the game is based on a sci-fi take on WW1-2 armies before we really came to grasp the idea that intel and coordination are far more important then brute strength.


----------



## SonOfStan (Feb 20, 2011)

Falkenhyn said:


> Really? I bet you never had to deal with a training Corporal or a RSM they are the hardest SOBs youll ever meet, a RSM will rip somes leg off and beat them half to death with it and then scream at them for not running fast enough lol.
> 
> Well not rip it all the way off but you know what im saying. We have hard dudes in the army and in infantry schools is where you find all the psyco hard arse NCO's


Yeah, except in the Imperial Guard, the NCOs are actually authorized to do stuff like that, and it isn't an exaggeration.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Indeed, casualties are commonplace in many regiments training/recruiting regimes.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

LukeValantine said:


> On a unit to unit bases I have no idea how things would stack up directly as the tech specs in 40k are as expected incredibly vague, but we generally due know that somethings we have now are in fact better then stuff in 40k.
> 
> Tanks, Most US or german made tanks these days have incredibly sophisticated armor and defense systems with inbuilt defenses against assault and homing devices (Imagine if IG tanks had built in explosive charges designed to clear of assault orcs). Also many modern day tanks have the equivalent of tau seeker missiles in that they have remote guided wire fire missiles that can hit the weakest part of any given tanks armor. Also most modern day tanks have aim assisting mechanism and stabilizers so they can fire well moving at their top speed and still hit the mark.
> 
> ...


 Wow, very nice indepth look.k:


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Buttons said:


> I really have to disagree with both of these, particularly Armageddon. While they (Death Korps) might not be as skilled as a modern soldier (I still think they might be, simply because it doesn't take too long to train a modern soldier, USMC has like 13 weeks boot camp), they have a level of determination that most modern soldiers cannot hope to match. The Imperial Guard is already well known for being determined beyond almost any modern military, and the Death Korps is more determined than most Guard regiments. While it won't win them the battle the sheer determination might give them enough of an edge to win.
> 
> As for the Steel Legion, they have had to fight off two Ork invasions, they are a largely mechanized military like modern militaries, in such an environment any bad soldiers would probably die very quickly. I think your average Steel Legionnaire is probably more akin (in skill) to a veteran of Stalingrad or Okinawa than an American, British, Russian, or Chinese soldier currently serving.


According to Dead me walking the when a krieg male becomes 16 he joins the death korps. By that time he already has a life time of combat experience.

Before you go quoting how big a modern day army is, that number means nothing. For example. An army could be a million men strong. 

how many of them are tied into support roles. maintence firemen etc etc If only 100K have actually been into combat that's only 100K that you can count on.

You can shoot all the metal targets you want. The only way you're going to be an asset is if you proved you're worth in combat.

Secondly let's look at equipment. The las rifle is going to be more accurate and dangerous than the m16 or ak47. 
Their tanks are shooting .75 cal rockets from their machine guns. most tanks use .50 and 7.62 weights of lead and copper.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

That's not true, though. As stated earlier, several IG-centered novels (Gaunt's Ghosts) have featured planetary forces taking on Imperial rebels with equipment that is very similar to our own - carbines, machineguns, etc. While there's no indication that they are _exactly_ like an M-4, an AK-47, an M-240b, or an M-249, the fact of the matter is that it's _highly_ unlikely that the caliber of their munitions varies that much from our own 5.56, 7.62, .50, etc., calibers.

And even if those forces automatic weapons WERE somehow archaic, stopping power and type of caliber hasn't changed that much since WWI or WWII - it's mostly rates of fire, accuracy, durability, etc., that advanced. It's why certain weapons from decades ago - sidearms especially - are considered as effective today as they are now.

You also really have to take with a grain of salt certain technological advantages we supposedly have over the IG.

Most of the vehicles, tanks, and apparata used by the IG were first designed more than two decades ago. At the time, the innovations we would come to see with Abrams and Leopard tanks, the Land Warrior and affiliated projects (some of which are hardly universal in issue; also, ask anyone who uses Blue Force Tracker and such how "up to date" the information it provides is) were either years away or not necessarily common knowledge among game designers.

People bitch about the fluff enough as it is. Can you imagine how up in arms many customers would be if every new edition included new gimmicks and kit for the IG to reflect (or trump) the newest innovations in our current war-fighting arsenals?

_"Oh, nice. Time to update the rules to include GPS-guided artillery shells."_

Some of these discussions really, really need a healthy injection of suspension of disbelief. 40k is definitely meant to convey a grim era where technology is tantamount to religion, and approached much like our ancestors would treated magic. Yes, there is regression in many cases, and yes, innovation and creativity are often mentioned as sins. To assume that the majority of the war-fighting equipment the Imperium uses planet-side falls under a completely different tech category than the planets they are manufactured in is to miss the point of the game/setting, IMHO.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

If they kept updating the fluff to keep up with our own modern technologies then this entire debate would be useless. Luckily we are supposed to be arguing classical interpretations of IG vs modern militaries 1on1. Allowing for suspension of disbelief makes this entire debate retarded as fiction allows us to imagine what ever the hell we want. So if you take that view then you are almost idiotically arguing that the most advanced army we could ever imagine should be able to beat what we currently have.

Bravo you have proven a point that is so insanely obvious that no one gives a damn. I mean seriously if you don't set boundaries then no debate is even possible its simple god damn logic! Imagine trying to argue which number is bigger if both values were X see how stupid that is. I am not trying to offend you, but your suggestion is so logically unsound that it makes me insanely angry.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> If they kept updating the fluff to keep up with our own modern technologies then this entire debate would be useless.





> Luckily we are supposed to be arguing classical interpretations of IG vs modern militaries 1on1.


Do me a favor, and take a moment to compare the two above statements. Think about them for a bit, and how they relate to the debate in question.



> Allowing for suspension of disbelief makes this entire debate retarded ...


No, not really. See below.



> ... as fiction allows us to imagine what ever the hell we want.


Kind of, but not to those extremes, and not in the way you're proposing. You're close, though, which is ironic.

Open a 40k novel from the 90s. Flip through it. Consider the uses of technology shown in it. Then open a novel from today. Do the same. Alternately, spend a few minutes to compare the initial run of 40k miniatures versus the various items that were released since then. You know, the different types of new Dreadnoughts, Super-Heavy Tanks, Gunships, Elysian vehicles, etc., etc., all of which magically appeared in the game and/or the fluff without there being _even one mention of them_ before they were released as a product.

What's my "almost idiotic" argument about again?

Oh, yeah.

That, since the game/fluff keeps releasing newer things that are more advanced than their predecessors while ALSO indicating that those things actually existed in the fluff already (Contemptors dating to the Great Crusade; various Super Heavies dating back centuries; etc.), _it does you no good_ to try to compare the IG *as written* to the 21st century military, since the full spectrum of the IG's capability will probably never be known so long as GW can afford to pump out new products. That is, every new release that they can afford to make will naturally be more advanced/impressive in terms of capability, since (A) art often imitates life and - less to the point where this debate is concerned - (B) it's kind of anticlimactic to spend $50 on a new tank that ends up being shittier than the Leman Russ you already owned and knew about.

So we're not talking about imagining "what ever the hell we want", but it's obvious that the information in the Codices and the novels - which originates from a time when the authors/game designers were not necessarily the most informed in terms of military technology - is NOT the end-all, be-all of the IG's capabilities.



> So if you take that view then you are almost idiotically arguing that the most advanced army we could ever imagine should be able to beat what we currently have.


Oh, yeah, that too! Thanks.



> Bravo you have proven a point that is so insanely obvious that no one gives a damn. I mean seriously if you don't set boundaries then no debate is even possible its simple god damn logic! Imagine trying to argue which number is bigger if both values were X see how stupid that is.


Stupid like taking a step back and assuming that, in the absence of certain data that would be transparent to the game and thus pointless to include in a Codex, Imperial Guard equipment from the far future might include certain features that we take for granted during out time period?

Here's food for thought: the Leman Russ, according to the latest Codex, can run on VIRTUALLY ANY FUEL. Do you have any idea how freaking complex and advanced something would have to be to accept gasoline, diesel, and ethanol at the same time? Now imagine how many different fuel types they have across a million planets!

Despite this, though, you're willing to tell me that our tanks have aim-assisting devices and stabilizers in a way that implies that the IG tank doesn't have the equivalent because someone didn't spell it out for you?

Stupid like that?

I'm not telling you to not debate this, Luke. I'm pointing out that it's pretty damn short-sighted to assume that the five paragraphs of descriptive text dedicated to the Leman Russ battle tank (to cite one example) encapsulate ALL of its capabilities, and thus give you a clear idea of how it compares to an M-1A2 Abrams.



> I am not trying to offend you, but your suggestion is so logically unsound that it makes me insanely angry.


Logically unsound like assuming that an army 38,000 years from now will be conquering planets with:

1. Tanks that go less than 30mph and combine weapons systems so advanced we can't even theorize how to create them with (so far as we know) non-existent targeting systems? 
2. Portable communication systems the size of archaic radio sets that only deliver unreliable audio transmissions to an extremely limited range?
3. Conventional steel armor for tanks/APCs, but refractor field technology that can stop even advanced energy weapons for the lowest level of commissioned officer?
4. Horse cavalry (and I'm not talking about the gene-engineered Krieg mounts) that is supposed to be effective against automatic weapons, armored vehicles, artillery, etc.?

Oh, and by the way, all of the above are somehow plausible even though they got to the battlefield thanks to space-faring craft that can:
1. Cross entire swathes of the galaxy in months.
2. Zoom across a solar system within hours/days (depending on the size of system).
3. Fire weapons capable of turning entire cities into rubble within seconds, and entire continents into charnel houses within hours/days.

Why did I pipe in with my oh, so "insanely obvious" point? I don't know - perhaps because it's a forum for discussion and people are entitled to share their point of view even if it's not necessarily popular?

Next time, do me a favor. If you don't care for my argument just tell me to shut up and stay out of the thread. Don't try to tell me I or my ideas are "almost idiotic" or "logically unsound" when your counter-arguments amount to the above.

Oh, yeah. I, too, didn't mean to be insulting. WINK. WINK.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

Falkenhyn said:


> Really? I bet you never had to deal with a training Corporal or a RSM they are the hardest SOBs youll ever meet, a RSM will rip somes leg off and beat them half to death with it and then scream at them for not running fast enough lol.
> 
> Well not rip it all the way off but you know what im saying. We have hard dudes in the army and in infantry schools is where you find all the psyco hard arse NCO's


Ft Knox Kentucky OSUT 5/15 Cav

Ft. Stewart GA 3rd ID 3/7, and 5/7 Cav.

I've definetly been there, and IG training is way more hardcore than whats offered today. When I read IG novels it's more like 1930's Nazi Germany, then any modern first world army.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Early Republican Roman legionnaires are probably a very good equivalent for the average Guardsman - in terms of mentality. They, too (for a short period, at least), saw warfare as an obligation with religious meanings.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> God talk about missing the fields for the trees. Listen what you just said proves my point in that I can apply the same logic to prove that gaurdsman should never win a fight in 40k...ever!


You could make a lot of arguments, to an extent... Again, though, _you can't arrive at a logical answer in this debate by comparing the IG purely as written with a modern faction._



> The logic behind such a assumption being that compared to nerons IG are retarded apemen with plastic toys. Its not explicitly stated, but I bet going on the same logic that you brought up that a basic necrons living metal body is 10X stronger then plastell plating, and that they should have enough physical strength to rip a guard tank in half do to them logically having alloys and mechanical skill 100X that of a tech priest. Its not stated in the small paragraph on necrons but we can infer it logically.


No, not really.

While the lack of information in the Codices precludes us from objectively comparing the known (21st century technology) with the unknown (the total capability of IG technology, which is updated as GW and FW see fit), we DO have a similar baseline of knowledge regarding both the IG and the Necrons. 

Meaning, without knowing what specific targeting/fire control systems a Leman Russ has, or how 40k steel compares to ours*, we know how it roughly compares to, say, a Doomsday Arc or a Death Scythe. Similarly, without knowing exactly how a Gauss blaster works, or what living metal entails, we know - all other factors being absent - how many Imperial Guardsmen armed with lasguns would be needed to stand up to a single Necron Warrior.

* Compare, for instance, the quality and durability of steel being produced now versus steel produced several centuries ago. Or, if you're really curious, compare the quality and durability of steel produced for the armor worn by upper echelon nobles in the 14th-15th centuries versus that produced for mercenaries and peasant infantry in the same time period.



> Its funny how you rote so much, but missed the entire point I was getting at.


Your point, however, is unsound. How are you going to determine which one of two products is "better" or "best" without actually knowing what one of the two products entails? Without that knowledge, who are you to tell someone that they are pushing illogical, stupid, or non-sensical ideas when they posit that _you might just have to fill in some blanks_ - *that is, the very same game company that created this game does exactly that with every new release?*



> See its called logic if something is not stated you can't magicaly make what ever statement you want. Besides we F&%$#ing know the guard don't have said tactical weapons and equipment because the game tells us they DON'T. In that their are 100's of stories about 40k. Don't you think they would have mentioned blind firing weapons or the like if they had them?


Blind-firing weapons. Right.

So... out of curiosity, how widespread do you think such weapons are? Who or what services/agencies do you think use them commonly? While you're at it, care to comment on the fact that rare/advanced weaponry is likewise available to exotic/upper-tier organizations and operatives in 40k as well?

It's kind of a cheap question, I admit. I'm familiar enough with what weapons and equipment a US Special Forces Soldier, Army Ranger, or regular infantryman brings to the fight. Funny, antiquated descriptions of vox equipment aside (mind you, from the same fictional setting where line Guardsmen also have wireless earbuds for tactical communications), none of it is beyond what we've seen the IG field (whether as loose variations or almost direct equivalents).

But anyways, I pointed out that it was odd to say our tanks are superior on account of aiming assistance mechanisms, since it assumes that a 40k tank wouldn't have anything comparable. I mentioned the fact that a Leman Russ can accept "virtually any fuel" to point out that a vehicle with such capabilities wouldn't exactly have the targeting technology of, say, a WWI or WWII tank.

I would have thought that would be a decent clue. I guess that wasn't enough.

So, want to get really in depth, Luke? The Leman Russ is stated to be able to move and shoot at the same time (5E Codex). What do you think aiming assistance mechanisms or fire control computers do for an Abrams? What do you think made the Abrams and comparable designs really special as compared to previous generations of tanks as relates to such technology?

(I'll help you out: said technology allows the Abrams, the Leopard 2, and other comparable tanks to fire accurately while moving)

I guess you had to read into the fluff text a little, take it a step further, and fill in the blank. You might have to "use your imagination a bit" or inject some "suspension of disbelief", but you can probably picture a Leman Russ including some sort of computer/mechanism that allows it to fire a cannon on the move. Some things _are_ transparent where game rules are concerned, and thus don't need to be explicitly stated in a Codex. Making comparisons purely on what's written on a game manual's page won't automatically give you the "who's the best" answer.

Oh, and fun fact: neither the "move and fire at the same time" or the "can use virtually any fuel" statements were to be found in the 4E Codex. Does that mean that the same Leman Russes that existed since shortly after the Great Crusade magically became that much more comparable to 21st century tanks as of 2008 (the 5E Codex's printing date)? Or were the GW writers just filling in some blanks, adding some fluff text, and otherwise just casually mentioning something that was already understood (but transparent) _to anyone willing to use their imagination a bit?_

Go figure.



> You know what I'm done you are a IG fan boy ...


Point of fact, the IG is my least favorite faction. Everyone here knows that I only lie and twist facts when it's time to make the Dark Angels look good.

Wait, scratch that. It's the Tyranids.


----------



## SonOfStan (Feb 20, 2011)

I certainly think that we can make some logical inferences in regards to IG technology. Let's face it, we have to make logical inferences all the time when it comes to 40k (sometimes to the point of dismissing written fluff) 

I mean, SURE, somewhere someone wrote down that an Imperator Titan is only X meters tall (I think it was 60, I can't remember) However, that makes absolutely no sense when you consider that they are described as having entire companies of infantry in their leg stations, as well as looking like a piece of a hive city that got up and started walking around. So what do we do? We call bullshit on the 60-meter fluff, and decide in general that Imperator Titans are, at the absolute least, one bazillion times larger then that. 

I don't see how that's any different from making an educated guess regarding IG warfare capabilities.



Phoebus said:


> It's kind of a cheap question, I admit. I'm familiar enough with what weapons and equipment a US Special Forces Soldier, Army Ranger, or regular infantryman brings to the fight. Funny, antiquated descriptions of vox equipment aside (mind you, from the same fictional setting where line Guardsmen also have wireless earbuds for tactical communications), none of it is beyond what we've seen the IG field (whether as loose variations or almost direct equivalents).


Haha, I found the wireless earbud piece to be funny as well. I want one. I'm tired of my handmike.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Dammit, I wanted to rep you for that one, SonOfStan! :biggrin:


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Damn Phoebus, you picked that argument apart real quick. :goodpost:

2 other things to point out that should be taken into account, but people will say can't be because the codex's don't detail it, is the 38,000 years of evolution on the Human Race and the environmental factors of the worlds the IG grew up in.

The 38,000 years of evolution would/could enable all sort of subtle changes in the human body. If you look at the Catachan art works their whole army looks like Dolph Lundgren clones. We should/could, at that point, be predisposed to being taller, stronger, faster, better then we are now. On a genetic level. Not that there couldn't be exceptions to the rule on both sides, we have exceptionally gifted troopers, just like they would. I would say that our most gifted wouldn't stack up, genetically speaking, against the most gifted of the IG.

Not every world colonized would have conditions exactly equal to Earth. Increased or decreased atmospheric pressure or gravity would effect the IG in more then just training (an army trained on a high grav/low atmosphere world? Yikes). It could even effect how people evolved on the planet, if they were there long enough.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Correct!

There was an old short story where a Guardsman crashes on a planet where humans have evolved to compensate the high gravity of their world with an extra pair of legs. I can't remember whether the focal character mentions the possibility of emergency genetic engineering (by the colonists, to survive on the world they're stuck on) as opposed to freakishly quick adaptation, though.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I give up. I really am astounded that no one got that my argument had nothing to due with the IG, and was actually a critique of the the huge ass logical errors in phoebus argument. By logic I also don't mean in the common sense of the term either, but in the academic your argument is stupid way. You know that whole if X then Y....Oh well. (You know falsifiability, deductive reasoning, evidence)

Also Pheobus despite what your supporters say your really killing the whole idea of 40k in your argument. You see the IG doesn't have the stuff modern armies do because they don't know how their tech works. You know the whole entire thing with the tech priests and mars, you see change and adaption of tech requires you know how it works, so even though you seem not to grasp why your argument was so incredibly offensive to anyone with a grasp of philosophical logic, at least know that your own bastardized internal idea of how the IG does in no way reflect the spirit of the 40k universe. So have fun winning a debate decided in your own distorted vision of 40k. You know 40k were people still ride on horses at machine guns nest and somehow win.

Now if this thread was titled how does the concept of the IG compare to modern militaries then everything Pheobus said would be right, but its not and that's why I really am taken back by peoples support of someones own none cannon interpretation of the fiction. Then again if 16-18% of all Americans can believe that the sun revolves around the earth still than anything is possible.


----------



## SonOfStan (Feb 20, 2011)

LukeValantine said:


> Also Pheobus despite what your supporters say your really killing the whole idea of 40k in your argument. You see the IG doesn't have the stuff modern armies do because they don't know how their tech works. You know the whole entire thing with the tech priests and mars, you see change and adaption of tech requires you know how it works, so even though you seem not to grasp why your argument was so incredibly offensive to anyone with a grasp of philosophical logic, at least know that your own bastardized internal idea of how the IG does in no way reflect the spirit of the 40k universe. So have fun winning a debate decided in your own distorted vision of 40k. You know 40k were people still ride on horses at machine guns nest and somehow win.


What I think you're forgetting is that the IG are utilizing technology that they don't understand...based off of technology developed tens of thousands of years from now. Standard Template Construct, remember? Super-advanced technology that somehow still works even though barely understood by the people using it, right? Unless what you're suggesting is that, in actuality, the Standard Template Construct for a Leman Russ is just an old blueprint for a WWI tank that someone found laying around. 

As for fluff interpretation, that's what every single discussion of 40k is based off of (for an example, see my excellent Imperator Titan analogy above) Let's face it, not every one of the authors knows jack or squat about anything related to firearms, or military-grade equipment. That's why Space Marines, despite being described as being the ultimate military force Humanity has to offer, are always blazing away with their bolters on fully automatic (even though anyone who's ever fired a rifle on fully auto can tell you that it's the worst way to go about actually killing something) That's the reason you never read about Imperial Guard using basic infantry tactics, such as fire and maneuver, or 'controlled pairs,' or, hell, advancing while supported by a base of fire. Am I supposed to infer from this that Space Marines are horrible marksmen, and that the Imperial Guard are tactically retarded? No. Of course not. I know that the author is just trying to tell a good science fiction story, and I fill in the rest of the gaps with my own knowledge of how shit in the real world works.

That's where that fine line between following the fluff and inserting real-world facts comes in. If the BL publishes something that we KNOW contradicts real-world facts, I think that it's alright for us to make our own decisions during discussions like this.



Phoebus said:


> Dammit, I wanted to rep you for that one, SonOfStan! :biggrin:


Just find me an earbud and we'll call it even. :laugh:


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

If we were to go full Tom Clancy with WH40k, only a handful of people would understand what's going on and it would be overly complicated in an area that's just pointless. 

And I don't get your argument about the full auto bit. Bolters don't have recoil or if they do, Astartes are not affected by it given their strength and power-armor.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> I give up. I really am astounded that no one got that my argument had nothing to due with the IG, and was actually a critique of the the huge ass logical errors in phoebus argument. By logic I also don't mean in the common sense of the term either, but in the academic your argument is stupid way. You know that whole if X then Y....Oh well. (You know falsifiability, deductive reasoning, evidence)


Luke, you're out of control. If you think I'm telling you you're being stupid, you're wrong. And if you think there's somehow a "huge ass logical error" in providing evidence or using deductive reasoning, I don't know what to tell you.

I brought up two points:
1. You're comparing something known to something that changes/gets better every year... but everything that changes/gets better about it is assumed to have always existed/been around for a long time.
2. You made assumptions about one of those things being better because things weren't spelled out about the other thing. I pointed out that, even though they weren't spelled out for you, they were there all the same. To top it all off, I gave you two nice examples - straight out of a Codex.

There's no "huge ass logical error" there. It's common sense. With one hand, I'm telling you "Don't really expect to arrive at an easy conclusion with this question. You might have to consider that there's plenty of crap the Guard has/had that we simply haven't seen yet." With the other, I'm telling you "No, you're wrong, an M1A2 Abrams isn't better for the reasons you listed."



> Also Pheobus despite what your supporters say your really killing the whole idea of 40k in your argument. You see the IG doesn't have the stuff modern armies do because they don't know how their tech works.


That's a false line of reasoning. The Imperial Guard has nothing to do with what equipment they get. That's up to the Adeptus Mechanicus (who make things) and the Munitorum (who assign things).

When GW and FW release new things, they often release fluff to go with them. So they didn't say that the Guard somehow invented the Baneblade - they said it had been around for millennia, and that its numbers had been depleted. They pointed out that certain Forge Worlds that lost data to make the Baneblade instead came up with their own variants of Super-Heavy Tanks. Or they offered that other designs (like the Malcador) were not as efficient to make as the Leman Russ, which is why they fell by the wayside. None of those had to do with the Guard getting smarter about tech. They were "fluffy" ways to insert new things in the game, and they're 100% canon.

The Guardsmen of the Imperial Guard will still treat technology like a religious matter. They're still going to be ignorant about how it works. All I'm pointing out is that the way the game, its business model, and its fictional universe work, that there will be *new things* to be ignorant about. And that new information will sometimes arise about how those things work (like the line about the fuel, or the comment/rules about being able to fire while moving, neither of which were in older Codices). At this point, though, I think you're genuinely misunderstanding my points, getting frustrated by what you think I'm driving at, and this is showing in your posts.



> You know the whole entire thing with the tech priests and mars, you see change and adaption of tech requires you know how it works, so even though you seem not to grasp why your argument was so incredibly offensive to anyone with a grasp of philosophical logic, at least know that your own bastardized internal idea of how the IG does in no way reflect the spirit of the 40k universe.


I SHOWED you, though, not only how it reflects the spirit of this universe, but how it DOES work in it as well.

As more Codices, Imperial Armour books, and models have been released, more things like the Baneblades (above) were inserted in the fluff: Dreadnoughts, tanks, variants of Predators and Land Raiders, Gunships, etc. And more fluff statements and rules were released, expanding our understanding of what the Guard's tech was capable of. At no point between 1995 and 2012 (to my knowledge; I only started reading 40k novels in 2006) did anyone from GW, FW, or BL come out and say _"Oh, it's because the Guard started getting smarter about their tech",_ which is what you imply my argument is.

How do you explain this?



> So have fun winning a debate decided in your own distorted vision of 40k. You know 40k were people still ride on horses at machine guns nest and somehow win.


I don't even LIKE the Rough Riders! I think it's a ridiculous concept for the most part! I just pointed out that it *does exist* in the 40k universe. Are you telling me that it doesn't? It's in the fluff AND the rules! Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not there!...



> Now if this thread was titled how does the concept of the IG compare to modern militaries then everything Pheobus said would be right, but its not ...


Uh... the title is "IG compared to Mordern (sic) Day military".

The author asked "who comes out on top?" with a few match-ups in mind.

I'm pointing out that it's difficult to determine that without (A) using your imagination (since so much about Imperial tech is left unsaid) or (B) taking into consideration that the Guard gets a little better every time new material is released by GW/FW.



> ... and that's why I really am taken back by peoples support of someones own none cannon interpretation of the fiction.


What about my argument is not canon?

The fact that, with 5E, it was revealed that the Leman Russ was more advanced than you gave it credit for?

Or the fact that new stuff is released for the IG year after year, and is inserted in the fluff's past (e.g., Baneblades coming out almost a decade and a half into the hobby, but with fluff saying it was around for millennia)?



> Then again if 16-18% of all Americans can believe that the sun revolves around the earth still than anything is possible.


Yeah, sure, make fun of Americans you bitter man, you. That suddenly made your argument much more cogent and meaningful.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

LukeValantine said:


> Then again if 16-18% of all Americans can believe that the sun revolves around the earth still than anything is possible.


Source? I would really like to see where you pulled that info from, as I find it hard to believe that 56 million people in the US think the Earth revolves around the sun.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

Wusword77 said:


> Source? I would really like to see where you pulled that info from, as I find it hard to believe that 56 million people in the US think the Earth revolves around the sun.


As an american this makes me a sad panda.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

I just keep saying Small Sample Size , Small Sample Size


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

It's ok, more Americans got the right answer than did Brits...oh


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

So they checked 1,016 people (in 1999), and 18% answered wrong. I don't think 1,016 people is a good enough sample size to make that assumption.

Then again, I think everyone should read the entire article, so you can read this tidbit:



> These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn't know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn't know.


By those numbers America did the best.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

Wusword77 said:


> So they checked 1,016 people (in 1999), and 18% answered wrong. I don't think 1,016 people is a good enough sample size to make that assumption.
> 
> Then again, I think everyone should read the entire article, so you can read this tidbit:
> 
> ...


Hence the Small Sample Size part of my original post, with the link to that article.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

What the hell does any of that have to do with the OP?


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

Serpion5 said:


> What the hell does any of that have to do with the OP?


Derailed thread, was derailed?


----------



## SonOfStan (Feb 20, 2011)

Malus Darkblade said:


> If we were to go full Tom Clancy with WH40k, only a handful of people would understand what's going on and it would be overly complicated in an area that's just pointless.


Exactly my point. :grin: That's why I don't think it's a huge deal to sort of fill in the gaps during conversations like this. 



Malus Darkblade said:


> And I don't get your argument about the full auto bit. Bolters don't have recoil or if they do, Astartes are not affected by it given their strength and power-armor.


Yeah, totally forgot the point about bolters not having recoil. I haven't had internet access for a few days, so I couldn't correct it. That wasn't really my argument, though...just a bad example. Haha.


----------

