# Imperial Guard "Naval" Vessels



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I watched Attack of the Clones last night, and saw the Water World, and wondered why there was no such instances of Imperial Worlds that are used for water production.

The closest example I can find of shipping in water is either Armaggeddon (used by the Orks which surprised the Guard; although 'Geddon was hardly a water world), the Tau versus SM (which was Shallow and submerged), and the 3rd edition Nid Dex (with the Hormagaunts attacking the Cruise Liner after their Mycetic Spore came adrift).

So, that leads me to question the sizing of the Guard, or at least PDF vessels.

There are lots of arguments for why "Aquanautica" shouldn't occur, namely because of Air-Space Mastery bypassing the requirement for such.

However, that does not stop land-bound Installations existing, and they're far "easier" to locate, and potentially render unuseable, and well "shit's magic, due", so why not?

There are Ordinatus Weapon Systems available on land, but the mass of the vehicle leads it to being un-maneuverable and more suited to drawn out sieges or defences. An Ordinatus Mounted on a Vessel would be more speedy ability to deliver ordnance against targets that are embedded.

Conversely, it may well become an Anti-Orbital umbrella; masses of Air-Defence capable weaponry and a few weapons capable of breaking into low-orbital ranges to take out enemy vessels in range to deploy troops.

For standard weapons, you could be looking at Titan level weaponry. Everything in 40K is sci-fied Archaic analogies; the weaponry is likely supersized versions of the comparison between the main guns of tanks compared to the Ship Borne vessels.

So, I'm going to use the Yamato as a prime examples.

I know an Earthshaker is listed at 132mm; compared to the WW2 Artillery famous 88mm cannon; so roughly a 1.5* increase in size; comparing to the 18inch guns of the Yamato; equating to ~24+ Inch cannons, mounted in Triple turrets, perhaps 3 of that size. If we call that a Quake Cannon as being an upgunned Earthshaker?

A 40mm *Bofors* cannon I'd estimate as being an Autocannon, while a Heavy Stubber is analogous to a .50.

The 25mm AA Guns; perhaps an Assault Cannon, or Punisher, the 5inchers, are definately the size of the Earthskaher (127mm); however in "15 Hours" a new type of cannon, the Hellbreaker is mentioned. Although not correllated anywhere else, it is described as a larger Earthshaker.

So, here's a rough equivalent.

Yamato 1945
9 × 46 cm (18.1 in) (3×3)
6 × 155 mm (6.1 in) (2×3)
24 × 127 mm (5.0 in)
162 × 25 mm (0.98 in) Anti-Aircraft (52×3, 6×1)
4 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in) AA (2×2)

Yamato 39,945
9 Quake Cannons (3 Turrets with 3 Guns in each)
6 Hellbreakers (2 Turrets with 3 Guns in each)
24 Earthshakers
162 Heavy Bolters/Punisher Cannons/Assault Cannons
4 Heavy Stubbers (2 Turrets with 2 Guns in each).

And as well know, each tank has around twice the amount of guns of a typical WW2 vehicle (SPONSONS!), so if we conservatively say a 1.5* upgun;

Yamato 39,945
12 Quake Cannons (4 Turrets with 3 Guns in each)
9 Hellbreakers (3 Turrets with 3 Guns in each)
36 Earthshakers
243 Heavy Bolters/Punisher Cannons/Assault Cannons
6 Heavy Stubbers (3 Turrets with 2 Guns in each).

Now, lets compare that to a modern Ballistic Submarine

Say, the RN's Vanguard; with 16 Missile Tubes, capable of firing Ballistic Missiles which are roughly analogous to Death Strike Missile. Now; if a Deathstrike is single Warhead (unitary) that's decent, but modern ICBM/SLBM's contain up to 4 475kt Munitions (around 25* the explosive power of an Hiroshima weapon), or several lesser munitions. Assuming this is the case, and the standard 1.5* weapon racks (24) and 1.5* size increases, results in around 148 warheads each with the power to put down the power of Hiroshima 35 times over (so around 5200 times the destructive power).

Considering that a Battery of 3 Deathstrikes requires a Lord Commissar to be in control and an entire Platoon to guard, ouch. 

Those missiles aren't even the largest, if we assume that Golgotha "Hellfire" Missiles are larger than "Deathstrike" Missiles (due to it being an MIRV as opposed to a Unitary Warhead), there's a comparison and a half.

There could be conversions of that based on being an "aircraft carrier", replacing the Missile Tubes with launch bays, capable of launching smaller craft like Lightning 2's once it makes the surface (specifically noted as being launchable via catapult), or opening up a "roof" to let VTOL Craft (I.e Valkyrie based craft (Aquila, Vulture, Vendetta etc) launch.

In regards to underwater combat; Space Marines can operate in the voids of space; I'm assuming their Jump Pack's engines can be replaced by turbines and their armour can defend against the pressures of the sea (although how much is not clear, but Terminator Armour is noted as being capable of operating in the temperature of a plasma reactor; one that is typically under high pressure to increase it's temperature).

To make beach assaults, Chimera's are noted as being amphibious (presumably based on an AAV7) and IIRC a Gorgon is an equivalent vehicle as well, so the requisite for Landing Craft is limited to transferring heavier kit over like Battle Tanks, etc.

Space Marines have less of a need for such vehicles; although hermetically sealed, their tanks can operate at ~30m of subermersion; a Transporter might be able to simply drop their tanks into the shallows, and have the vehicles assault from there onto the beach.

Other races; Tau are known to be capable of operating under the sea like Sebastian on Roids, Nidz would likely be able to adapt to such circumstances without too radical a change (if they can adapt to Deathworlds, and grow creatures without digestive systems growing gills and the ability to breathe the oxygen in a saline solution is a cinch). Orks can believe in something and make something work (as per Armageddon), while the Eldar and Crons in all their existence I cannot believe did not come up with the idea of being able to fight underwater. Daemons are not of this world and can *It's Magic Dude* it up.

TLR; anyone else wish underwatter combat was improved and expanded upon in the fluff? Dan Abnett I could imagine having a bit to do about this after the work put into fleshing out the Phantine Guard Regiment.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Yes, I do wish that GW touched on water world/underwater combat more often. Even archipelago worlds that rely on shipping to get to spaceports. Nods to ork submersibles occasionally (Armageddon & Assault on Black Reach) aren't quite enough.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Fire caste does include a bit of naval stuff. It does exist but I can't see it really being used for things other than invasions.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm a little shaky about the need for surface vessels. Anything you need destroyed could be delt with by aircraft or orbital bombardment. You don't need a relatively slow, vulnerable ship on the ocean to do that when you have space superiority.

And if you don't have space superiority, then you most definitely don't want to have slow, vulnerable ocean-going vessels on the surface.

An underwater navy would make much more sense. For dirty Xenos or human renegades living under the water.

Major vessels like you'd describe would require enormous lifters (it would have to be several times larger than an Emperor class titan's lifter, and those things are huge already). I think maybe an IG regiment from a water world armed with either personal "subs" or midget subs would probably make sense?



Mossy Toes said:


> Yes, I do wish that GW touched on water world/underwater combat more often.


The Space Wolves busted up a bunch of Tau underwater cities in their Land Raiders.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Why would you not?

In 1941 and 42 the Luftwaffe held the skies all around Britain. However, there were still naval vessels, because they were equipped with AA weaponry, they were an immense equalizer. 

By your theory, static defence installations are a noneentity due to the requisite of Space Superiority. Even in this day and age, an F35 taking on a Type 45 Destroyer would be ripped apart, so why should it not be upgunned to include Defense Lasers in 40k, make it so risky for a starship to get anywhere near that craft? Or replace its Deathstrike Missile Tubes with Surface to Orbit Torpedoes? If space superiority is not achieved does that render the ground supply convoys impossible? 

In regards to transport, the larger vessels would be essentially either modular constructions, or have specifically designed lifters. They have some for imperator titans, and assumedly Ordinatus systems, so having a lifter designed to take such a piece to a warzone would be a nightmare to get requested (possibly even segmentum command authorizdd signature request only and only on senior Martian say so.)

However, the craft do not have to be that size. It could be as little as something like a Rigid Raider, flat solid hulled boat, with a couple of Heavy Stubbers, or a River Patrol Boat, perhaps a Heavy Bolter and a Mortar tube or two with some
pintle Stubber mounts, somewhere to land and store a VTOL craft.

Even the inclusion of them would not be too hard, even if a Chimera or Gorgon was capable of amphiborne tactics, it is not oceangoing.

The midget subs idea I like, but due to their nature incapable of mass combat usage (mini being the factor, it can be registered as a dolphin or whale or other similar fauna); 4000 men, say 4 to a Sub is not particularly useful, and they might as well operate in one big one with several within suited to mini sub control and combat (like how an Aircraft Carrier acts).


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Sorry Vaz, not going to happen.

Looking back at WW2 you can see how Naval assets were savaged by aircraft.

Bismark, Tirpitz, Yamato, USS Alabama, The entire Italian Fleet, Yamato, and nearly all of the Japanese navy all fell prey to aircraft.

That's going to be 1000 times worse if the enemy is in orbit. Anything "dropped" from that height will hit with colossal force. Kinetic Penetrators are devices with no actual explosives but have a high density that are launched from orbit to hit a ground target. You can't shoot them down because "down" is exactly where they are going.

Why aren't land installations a non-entity due to space superiority? Well you have two options. 

1. They are
or
2. They don't sink. 

A single air attack on the Prince of Wales (UK battleship) sank it.

DAYS and WEEKS of naval bombardment made little to no impression on the Japanese bunkers on the many atolls the USMC had to assault.

A single good hit on a vessel can hole it and it is toast. It's very hard to bomb something on land to dust.

Submarines are really only useful if you have surface combatants.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Nidz would likely be able to adapt to such circumstances without too radical a change (if they can adapt to Deathworlds, and grow creatures without digestive systems growing gills and the ability to breathe the oxygen in a saline solution is a cinch). Orks can believe in something and make something work (as per Armageddon),


In Fire Caste the humans had a GIANT battleship, it was able to have 4 Troop Landers land on it with A LOT, I believe one group had to use binoculars to see the others, of room between them. There were several gun boats, think Vietnam, and an amphibious gun boat.

There was old fluff that said the Leviathians on Fenris were descendants/remnants of an ancient hive fleet.

There were rules, in either White Dwarf or Imp Armory, for an ork sub, you had to roll every turn to make sure the sub didn't flood/implode/explode/other fun stuff. Edit: That may be what you are describing. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> A single good hit on a vessel can hole it and it is toast.


That also applies to aircraft.

Ok think about this there is a world with alot of rivers and a large ocean, i.e. Modern Earth, and it is covered with dense jungles...how are you going to need to get troops in somehow, you could try to find a clearing, but while you are looking for one your getting your ass shot off. You could bomb the hell out of the jungle then move in but then you just wasted ammo that could of been used on the enemies. 

OR you could have some kind of ocean based platform to land troops and then ship them off to the jungles. Well a static platform will be found and destroyed, so why not make it move. Ok now the platform is moving and is harder for the enemy to find well it needs to be protected, so lets slap on some A.A. guns. Well now it's protected from the air but what if the enemy has a moving platform with guns, so lets slap on some cannons. There you go you now have a ship, until you can clear a beach head an make an actual landing area, or you can save resources and just keep with the ship.

Well the world is a dense jungle and it has alot of rives, soooo we can't really move big tanks quickly and we need to transport the troops and sentinels, we could just do air drops but then how to we move them to other area. Well the world has rivers so lets use small transport ships.

OR you could have a world,Z, with many continent and one Giant ocean, i.e. EARTH, well to save cost with interplanetary trade they ship goods, well X arrives on planet, To cripple Z X starts destroying the ships, to stop this Z either puts A.A. Guns on board or divert aircraft from attacking X, my money is on A.A. Guns, X is losing to many fighter/bombers to the A.A. Guns, so X captures some of Z's ships and put artillery/anti ship guns on board, To counter this Z does the same, thus you have armed transport-ships. Well X has set up some bases along the coast, the land route is heavily protected so to attack X Z converts some ships to full time combat ships and the slap some artillery for help, and now you have a battle ship.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Hmmm. Not going down without a fight on this one.

A Plane needs to get through the multiple "umbrella" which provide defence. Angel of Blood might be able to give more information on anti-aircraft defence than myself, but the basis of fleet protection has several stages;

1) Detect
2) Lock
3) Intercept
4) Ordnance

This is called the "dealio", dead nice and simple. Detection - this is the aircraft warning system recognising that it has not bypassed radar undetected. Lock - is the recognition of the aircraft getting hit by targeted weapons radar, laser, or thermal tracking sensors, the "Bitchin' Betty" you here going "Warning". Intercept is the scrambling of jet power (in fleet formation, there are usually overwatching aircraft and "scram jets" permanently ready to engage threats. Finally, is the unleashing of "Ordnance". This is when a Goalkeeper unloads, or Anti-Air Missiles trigger.

Each one of those is easily broadcast, and AFAIK, in the UK, anything breaching the "Intercept Barrier" (as in, too close to UK land to be engaged by Interceptors or ignoring Interceptor warnings) is free to be shot down.

In the Falklands, the lay of the land limited the Umbrella (along with shitty misfiring Rapier Defence systems) effectiveness, allowing the Argentinian aircraft to get relatively close; the one counter to that was when Harriers were in the sky.

When on the open sea though, the defence systems were capable of defeating the Argentine pilots. We have established in the Logistics thread that for a Space-going vessel to remain stationary in space is illogical and dangerous, so it cannot "loiter" in low orbit; the risk to itself (even if it has claimed orbital supremacy) in the event of hidden defences (Submarines with Orbital Torpedoes, say, or more standard hardened "pillboxes") is just not worth it.

It is likely used on a tasking base situation, like most of todays flyers are. At the start of a day, the FAC (or JTAC, in Afghanistan, my role), we would be assigned a number of Call Signs which would be on station at certain times of the day in our airspace. If Major operations were going down (Deliberate Ops), the OC in charge of the Op would ask what he thought would be ideal in the form of Munitions; I could then make OC aware that I'd like 4 Gunships working in pairs; whether as Apache's, or Cobra's; this was a defacto request, and was an extremely overstretched commodity. I would then look at intelligence reports, and depending on the type of terrain, I might request Fast Air, in the form of Harriers, or F16's, or I might even request a B1 or A10 with their huge ordnance stores.

Those can't always be on task; against a more technologically advanced opponent they would be threatened by Missile Defence at high level and at low level, by AA defences; Tunguska etc.

Against the Penetrators could hit with enough force to just punch straight through the ship. Ships of certain size can withstand the holing of a hull. I cannot remember if it's the case, but do Void Shields protect against orbital strikes? If there's indication of a ground installation being protected by Void Shields (say, Guns of Tanith? Execution Hour?), then why would they not be included on a ship? If the ship is large or important enough; such as said "Yamato" scale ship.

In regards to the Bunkers, however, compare that to Bunker Penetrators these days. I'm fairly confident that Penetrator/Drill Headed rounds designed to cut through Adamantine Hulls of space craft would be able to do the same to earth/rockcrete; not all Bunker installations have 5-30 metres of adamantium protection like Space capable craft do.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

_Flesh and Iron_ features a 'naval' Imperial Guard regiment, with big warships, smaller landers and even air-craft carriers. The regiment appears to be solely sea-based (there is a second regiment that does all the land fighting) and isn't local, so presumably they get shipped around to where-ever they're needed.

I think it would be an interesting layer to add on to the fluff to have naval battles and landings and such. Though I think trying to get it on the table-top would be more hassle than it's worth (unless you just pretended the whole table was the surface of the ship).


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

Because we all remember how well Dreadfleet went. :crazy:


----------



## xxJoshxx (Jul 21, 2009)

I quite certain that the Planet on which Fulgrim discovered his BFF Demon Sword was a planet almost entirely covered in water with only scattered Coral like islands was it not? I don't recall them using any Naval Vessels for that even though it would have made a great addition to the attack force, distraction wise. They just dropped down in either drop pods or on board a Storm Hawk.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

xxJoshxx said:


> I quite certain that the Planet on which Fulgrim discovered his BFF Demon Sword was a planet almost entirely covered in water with only scattered Coral like islands was it not? I don't recall them using any Naval Vessels for that even though it would have made a great addition to the attack force, distraction wise. They just dropped down in either drop pods or on board a Storm Hawk.


That's because the the 'islands' were hovering above the water, there was mention of one of the islands next to the island X, Tarvix?, was on plummeted from the sky when the power supply detonated.. Also that was an alien world and during the opening of stage, they had no need.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Sorry Vaz, not going to happen.
> 
> Looking back at WW2 you can see how Naval assets were savaged by aircraft.
> 
> ...


 Now with all that information why do they still use ships? Clearly aircraft is the way to go.

Ships haul more and don't require air fields to go to.

Aircraft are not invincible. Contrary to what he Us would lead you to believe they are not invincible. The only country in the last 40ish years to challenge the US air wise was vietnam. And frankly we have no idea of china's capabilities. 

Ships and planes have to work together.


----------



## Old Man78 (Nov 3, 2011)

I'm with Vaz on this, to adequately cover a planet with surface to orbit defense you would need to have weapon platforms on the oceans if applicable, and these would need to be mobile so as not to leave a fixed pattern of defense to be circumvented. Large scale defense platforms/ships with their own support such as air defense missile cruisers just like today's fleets would still be applicable in 40k as they are now, just bigger better armed and armored with turbo lasers and void shields, also when contesting a planet in conflict you may not have air/spacial superiority and would require to move mass cargo/troops by sea. 




Magpie_Oz said:


> Looking back at WW2 you can see how Naval assets were savaged by aircraft.
> 
> Bismark, Tirpitz, Yamato, USS Alabama, The entire Italian Fleet, Yamato, and nearly all of the Japanese navy all fell prey to aircraft.


The above is not wholly true,
1)Naval assets in ww2 nearly always got savaged by carrier born aircraft which still validates naval vessels as they are needed to protect the carrier that transports the planes.

2)Bismarks AA guns where geared toward high level bombers and could not for the most part shoot at the very low flying torpedo planes, which crippled the rudder as the other torpedo's did not penetrate the hull.

3)Tirpitz was targeted at anchor with huge purpose built bombs for attacking a static target and had no adequate air defense, Yamamoto no air cover, USS Alabama came through the war unscathed do you mean the Arizona? it was at Pearl Harbor and again parked up! And the Italian fleet again attacked at anchor.

Ships are vulnerable to aircraft but that applies to space craft as well and remember the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot"


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Vaz said:


> In 1941 and 42 the Luftwaffe held the skies all around Britain. However, there were still naval vessels, because they were equipped with AA weaponry, they were an immense equalizer.


Not to turn this into a history lesson, the the Nazi's concerted effort to bring down Britain through an air war ended by 1940.

Even ignoring that, as Magpie said, WW2 demonstrated the dangers of aircraft to surface vessels. Without air cover, fleets were asking to be destroyed. Hence the switch to aircraft carriers as the prime capital ship. You needed them to hit the enemy and protect yourself from the enemy's own aircraft.



Vaz said:


> By your theory, static defence installations are a noneentity due to the requisite of Space Superiority.


Static defenses in WH40k can provide sufficient defense from orbital bombardment--void shields. Can your ships say the same?



Vaz said:


> If space superiority is not achieved does that render the ground supply convoys impossible?


It's a very good way of forcing your enemy to sit tight under their void shields.

We see that happen in many sources. I can cite some, if you'd like.



Oldman78 said:


> remember the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot"


How does a bunch of aircraft shooting down other aircraft weigh in for the prowess of ships?

Plus the fight was so lopsided (both in terms of technology and personal skill of the soldiers) that it's really not all that important for the validation of either aerial or naval capabilities.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

hailene said:


> Static defenses in WH40k can provide sufficient defense from orbital bombardment--void shields. Can your ships say the same?
> 
> It's a very good way of forcing your enemy to sit tight under their void shields.
> 
> We see that happen in many sources. I can cite some, if you'd like.


How is it that a large enough ship can't have a void shield? i.e. a titan sized ship. Baneblades don't have void shields so why are they ripped apart as you are suggesting? You make it seem like if a ship takes so much as a nick it sinks like a rock.

In one of the Soul Drinker books they had to convert their (aircraft) into a makeshift raft, because the air was to corrosive to the fly.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

It's not just a voidshield. Titans are vulnerable to orbital bombardments.

It's about freakin' huge, honkin' voidshields that can't be easily destroyed. For that you need a massive powerplant and shields powerful enough to use that energy.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

hailene said:


> It's about freakin' huge, honkin' voidshields that can't be easily destroyed.


Or a way to avoid being easily targeted, such as being a mobile ship. There's a reason why Titan's are still a valid part of the 40k ground-war effort despite being vulnerable to orbital fire and it's because it's hard to bring that fire to bear against them. This is also why tanks and infantry are still used in 40k, despite being dramatically out-ranged and out-gunned by spaceships.

This is also why naval vessels remain a valuable part of the modern war-effort, despite their vulnerability to air-craft. War isn't just about having the biggest guns, it's about having the most options. Just because a space-ship out-guns anything that can be deployed on the surface (though they don't, and you could quite easily mount anti-orbit weapons on a ship) doesn't mean that it makes everything else irrelevant.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

locustgate said:


> That also applies to aircraft.


Aircraft are not as big a single investment as a battleship and they are somewhat harder to hit from orbit.



Vaz said:


> Against the Penetrators could hit with enough force to just punch straight through the ship. Ships of certain size can withstand the holing of a hull. I cannot remember if it's the case, but do Void Shields protect against orbital strikes? If there's indication of a ground installation being protected by Void Shields (say, Guns of Tanith? Execution Hour?), then why would they not be included on a ship? If the ship is large or important enough; such as said "Yamato" scale ship.


For sure shields could work, but then all you need to do is drop 2. A penetrator dropped from orbit will have more than enough energy to overload the shields and the second one will more or less vaporise the ship. It's nuclear bomb levels of energy.



Vaz said:


> In regards to the Bunkers, however, compare that to Bunker Penetrators these days. I'm fairly confident that Penetrator/Drill Headed rounds designed to cut through Adamantine Hulls of space craft would be able to do the same to earth/rockcrete; not all Bunker installations have 5-30 metres of adamantium protection like Space capable craft do.


True enough but the big difference is that a bunker is far cheaper than a battleship and even if it is utterly destroyed you can still hide in the ruins.



Reaper45 said:


> Now with all that information why do they still use ships?


If you bothered to actually read what I was saying you'd see I was talking about the fact that ships would be impossible to use in a situation where you do not have ORBITAL cover.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Looking back at WW2 you can see how Naval assets were savaged by aircraft.
> ...........
> 
> That's going to be 1000 times worse if the enemy is in orbit.


The real question however is not "how would surface naval forces survive" but more "What would surface naval forces do"

Modern navies exist to give the capability of "Power Projection" so with a Navy you can project your military power far beyond your borders using the sea. The Falklands was the prime example, the UK could project it's power when it had no land base of operations.

Why would you need that on a 40k planet? There might be Governor v Governor battles on the planet itself I suppose but from what I see most conflicts involve an entire planet against an invader from space. Each planet is considered a "country" rather than a series of countries.

What navy ships do now on the water is what the starships do in 40k and there just isn't a need for surface combatants.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

MEQinc said:


> Or a way to avoid being easily targeted, such as being a mobile ship. There's a reason why Titan's are still a valid part of the 40k ground-war effort despite being vulnerable to orbital fire and it's because it's hard to bring that fire to bear against them. This is also why tanks and infantry are still used in 40k, despite being dramatically out-ranged and out-gunned by spaceships.


Tanks and infantry and even Titans are useful because they can be placed too close to too valuable of targets to be destroyed by bombardment. 

A ship in the middle of an ocean is....?



MEQinc said:


> This is also why naval vessels remain a valuable part of the modern war-effort, despite their vulnerability to air-craft. War isn't just about having the biggest guns, it's about having the most options. Just because a space-ship out-guns anything that can be deployed on the surface (though they don't, and you could quite easily mount anti-orbit weapons on a ship) doesn't mean that it makes everything else irrelevant.


Magpie covered this. What does a naval vessel add? Besides being (relatively) slow and ponderous?

And, to my limited knowledge, the face of naval warfare would change rapidly if we were to see more even wars. The last 60 years have been a battle of curb stomps (or could have been, if politics and policy didn't tie some hands).

In a war of equal technology, an aircraft carrier is a billion dollar target looking to be downed by 10 million dollars of ordnance. That's why there's some general noise to move our navy towards smaller ships rather than a few enormous hulls. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> Aircraft are not as big a single investment as a battleship and they are somewhat harder to hit from orbit.


Not only that, but you can keep aircraft nicely shielded and protected by incredibly powerful voidshields when they're not in action. The time an aircraft is really under threat may be measured in minutes during a battle and hours during a war.

A major naval vessel is out in the open for weeks upon a time. Large and relatively slow.



Magpie_Oz said:


> "What would surface naval forces do"


As I brought up, the one instance I can think of is accessing deep underwater assets. Whether this be underwater caves or domed cities...

They're something you want to take and hold, not just blow up and deny. Maybe some sort of underwater refinery or mining base?

I guess you could have some sort of floating docks in the middle of the ocean and an army (navy?) of submersible fighting ships and transports for your Imperial Guardsmen.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> As I brought up, the one instance I can think of is accessing deep underwater assets. Whether this be underwater caves or domed cities...


That seems fair enough but it pretty much rules out surface combatants.

I am still having trouble coming up with a viable scenario where naval combatants, surface or sub-surface would be needed, even on a water world to be honest.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

hailene said:


> Not only that, but you can keep aircraft nicely shielded and protected by incredibly powerful voidshields when they're not in action. The time an aircraft is really under threat may be measured in minutes during a battle and hours during a war.


If you can put a void shield in an aircraft...why can't you put one on a giant aircraft carrier? And I swear I'm going to beat you with a fish if you say something about power source.

If you say it's to large then why do titans/bases/ships/hive cities have them



Magpie_Oz said:


> That seems fair enough but it pretty much rules out surface combatants.
> 
> I am still having trouble coming up with a viable scenario where naval combatants, surface or sub-surface would be needed, even on a water world to be honest.


Can Russ/ Chimeras float...or move when they are floating, can they carry enough food/fuel to keep the passengers alive long enough to fight. 
Aircrafts need fuel, or they will drop like a rock...sooo do you waste fuel having them, if they can, fly back to the mothership, in space, refuel and then reenter the atmosphere, and do this till you win the war. OR you could have them fly back to a floating, preferably moving, airfield, saves time and increases the time they can stay up.

There's no question IF the Imperium uses naval vessels, there's 2 books that have them using ships, and there's rules for an ork sub...I know orks build stuff at random, but I doubt an ork would just go for a joy ride without something to shoot.


----------



## Gromrir Silverblade (Sep 21, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The real question however is not "how would surface naval forces survive" but more "What would surface naval forces do"
> 
> Modern navies exist to give the capability of "Power Projection" so with a Navy you can project your military power far beyond your borders using the sea. The Falklands was the prime example, the UK could project it's power when it had no land base of operations.
> 
> ...


Have to agree on this one, isn't the real reason we have ships now is so that we can make sure our air cover goes round those places we can't have air cover from land based aircraft? If you're sitting up in orbit, that isn't really an issue. 

Sure you can have some super AA, but in no 40k books I have ever read does this last for that long. When you have laser batteries, cyclonic torpedoes and virus bombs you can just nuke it from orbit and then send down your lads.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The real question however is not "how would surface naval forces survive" but more "What would surface naval forces do"
> 
> Modern navies exist to give the capability of "Power Projection" so with a Navy you can project your military power far beyond your borders using the sea.


Magpie pretty much just summed up the whole topic with those two paragraphs. If you have orbital/space projection and transport capability, naval power becomes both redundant and obsolete.

It takes weeks for a carrier group to relocate from the east coast of the US to the Persian Gulf. By contrast, it took our space shuttle eight minutes to reach orbit. In the fictional timeline of the Horus Heresy, it took thirty minutes for landing craft to go evacuate three thousand Raven Guard legionaries and get back to orbit.

Naval craft are slow and inefficient by the standards of the far future. The power they project (missiles, gun batteries, aircraft, etc.) and the transport they can provide (supplies, troops, etc.) can be projected more efficiently and more rapidly from from orbit.

A planet without sufficient orbital transport and infrastructure has every reason to develop sea and rail transport and military assets - no doubt about it. The Imperial Guard and Navy, which already _depend_ on space and orbital technology to get their troops, vehicles, and supplies on a planet, do not need seagoing assets.

Are there scenarios that would require *sub-surface* sea-going assets? Sure, but that would be the exception to the rule. Codex: Imperial Guard doesn't mention even a single surface or sub-surface battle in its list of notable actions. Codex: Space Wolves mentions the Imperial Guard being _unable_ to engage the Tau "so many leagues below the sea" and so they call in the Space Wolves. Their response? Drive Land Raiders down to the ocean floor (they are apparently proof to the ridiculous pressures there).

I think it's very telling that the Space Marines - who are supposed to be able to operate in _any_ environment - had to resort to an obviously ad-hoc measure. I would be very surprised if the Imperial Guard could do better.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

locustgate said:


> If you can put a void shield in an aircraft...why can't you put one on a giant aircraft carrier? And I swear I'm going to beat you with a fish if you say something about power source.


No no no. Not on the aircraft themselves. I'm talking about when the aircraft are back _at base_. The hangers could be within the protective voidshield of the hive/fortress/fortress monastery, ect.

Also "something about power source" .



locustgate said:


> Can Russ/ Chimeras float


It does appear the Chimeras can float. In the IG codex it states that that the Chimeras are "amphibious vehicles". I wikied those, and it seemed amphibious vehicle are able to travel on or under water.

As for Russes, I haven't found anything stating whether they can, I would hazard a no.



locustgate said:


> Aircrafts need fuel, or they will drop like a rock...sooo do you waste fuel having them, if they can, fly back to the mothership, in space, refuel and then reenter the atmosphere, and do this till you win the war. OR you could have them fly back to a floating, preferably moving, airfield, saves time and increases the time they can stay up.


You either have 1. Won space superiority and then you can plant your space vessel in low orbit near you want to fly or 2. Haven't won space superiority and your sea vessels would be extremely vulnerable to being destroyed.
~~~

Phoebus pretty much summed up everything, too.



Phoebus said:


> I would be very surprised if the Imperial Guard could do better.


The SM are expected to do just about everything. You can only spread the peanut butter so far before all you're eating is bread. Different Chapters, though, have different specializations. Perhaps another Chapter would have been better suited?

Plus you could have an IG world that specializes in underwater fighting. Maybe they live on a water-world and all their cities are many dozens of kilometers under water?


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

hailene said:


> Also "something about power source" .
> 
> 
> 
> ...











But once again can the chimera carry enough food/fuel/drinkable water to travel an entire sea. Everyone is assuming the 40k ships are equal to modern ships, just with better targeting. 

P.S. Now that I think about it they can't, in Fire Caste a General decided to deploy a squadron (?) of tanks without boats. There were no survivors.

P.P.S Same book couldn't deploy troops on land do to Tau anti air cover 
(MASSIVE SPOILER)

at first but later on it was relieved it was part of a tau-human plot.
.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I wouldn't want to imagine a force of Chimeras trying to actually fight on the open seas. That would be...bad.
~~~~~~~~

Oh, another thought struck me! A situation where a navy would be needed:

The enemy fortress is surrounded by void shields and heavy anti-aircraft and anti-orbital weapons. Nothing is going to drop straight on it. Normally you'd take it by foot, right? The kicker? It's an island.

You have to launch an amphibious assault to form a beachhead.

Totally niche, but, hey, it's a wide universe...


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Just remember, though, amphibious vehicle does not necessarily mean _submersible_ vehicle. The term just means the vehicle in question can traverse bodies of water. Even then, it's to a certain extent. Modern Marine Corps vehicles, for instance, aren't meant to function as open-sea vessels. Like modified WWII tanks at Normandy, they're meant to make it from a ship to the shore.

As for the hypothetical island fortress? Meaning no disrespect, but I just don't see it. I have a hard time with concepts like "installation X is impervious to orbital bombardment!" Really? Ramilies Star Fortresses are as big as entire cities. They can house multiple capital ships, each of them several kilometers long. *Their* shields can go down, albeit after a ridiculous amount of punishment - why can't those of a ground fortress?

So I'm sorry, but when an author says that the installation's shields are too powerful for orbital bombardment, I say he or she simply is guilty of failing to come up with a plausible invasion scenario. If you want to tell me that the obsessive Lord Commander doesn't give a damn for the lives of his men and has no problem ordering a "glorious attack from orbit" before low orbit/ground defenses have been suppressed, though,
then that's fine. It's consistent with the setting.

Where the larger debate is concerned (regarding air bases, etc.), if void shields for ground installations were so ubiquitous, why is it that BFG doesn't have air bases, missile silos, etc., thusly protected? Fortress Worlds probably have a great deal of defenses, and supremely valuable installations probably have formidable shields of their own (see 'Storm of Iron', for instance), but void shields are probably the exception - not the rule.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> Just remember, though, amphibious vehicle does not necessarily mean _submersible_ vehicle.
> 
> =
> Where the larger debate is concerned (regarding air bases, etc.), if void shields for ground installations were so ubiquitous, why is it that BFG doesn't have air bases, missile silos, etc., thusly protected? Fortress Worlds probably have a great deal of defenses, and supremely valuable installations probably have formidable shields of their own (see 'Storm of Iron', for instance), but void shields are probably the exception - not the rule.


Who said an amphibious vehicle is a submersible?

Because it's main focus is space combat and they didn't want to flood the game with useless rules.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> st remember, though, amphibious vehicle does not necessarily mean submersible vehicle. The term just means the vehicle in question can traverse bodies of water. Even then, it's to a certain extent. Modern Marine Corps vehicles, for instance, aren't meant to function as open-sea vessels.


This sorta came out of left-field. Who or what are you responding to?

We talked about amphibious vehicles. We talked about subs. We didn't talk about amphibious vehicles being subs...



Phoebus said:


> why can't those of a ground fortress?


Without more information...I have no idea.

Maybe lances don't work all that well in the atmosphere? Even if that was the case, macro batteries and torpedoes ought to get the job done right.

The only idea I could think about is an example from Star Trek. There's a planetary shield and the Enterprise needs to rescue someone on the planet. In order to destroy the shield, though, there would have been enough bleed through to devastate the planet's surface.

We know, after all, an orbital bombardment isn't exactly a surgeon's scalpel. Maybe an installation's void shields hit that sweet spot of being too hard to be destroyed by smaller weapons, but not strong enough to reflect (all) of the big things?

Too much collateral damage? 

Also there are instances where the defenses of a target may not be even.

Look at the invasion of the Marines Errant Chapter Monastery. A space battle would have been a massacre, yet the actual defenses within the monastery were rather thin.



Phoebus said:


> why is it that BFG doesn't have air bases, missile silos, etc., thusly protected?


I haven't played BFG, but are there rules for planets? I thought it was mostly space installations, strike craft, and warships?


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

locustgate said:


> Who said an amphibious vehicle is a submersible?


Hailene seemed to think that might be the case:



> In the IG codex it states that that the Chimeras are "amphibious vehicles". I wikied those, and it seemed amphibious vehicle are able to travel on or under water.


I'm not trying to knock him - it's an easy misconception. But amphibious does not equal submersible.



> Because it's main focus is space combat and they didn't want to flood the game with useless rules.


That's not correct, though. Ground-based missile silos, defense lasers, and air bases are all given statistics in the BFG game. They do not have shields.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

hailene said:


> This sorta came out of left-field. Who or what are you responding to?


I'm sorry if it seemed that way. See the portion of your post I quoted for locustgate. Where amphibious vehicles - especially tanks are APCs - are concerned, amphibious does not equal "under water".



> Maybe lances don't work all that well in the atmosphere? Even if that was the case, macro batteries and torpedoes ought to get the job done right.


Exactly. And, absent any information about lances _not_ working well enough in the atmosphere, there's no reason to assume they don't.



> We know, after all, an orbital bombardment isn't exactly a surgeon's scalpel.
> ...
> Too much collateral damage?


Wait, is that the case, though? We've always known that orbital bombardments can devastate entire cities at the very least, but is that a function of indiscriminate power (meaning, they devastate entire cities because they can't hit accurately), or just power period? I ask this because, in "Calth that Was", orbital lance batteries are able to contain their effects within a 500m radius. That's _excellent_ when you consider that current-day 2000lb bombs can have adverse effects (collateral damage, not necessarily effective damage) out to that distance.



> Look at the invasion of the Marines Errant Chapter Monastery. A space battle would have been a massacre, yet the actual defenses within the monastery were rather thin.


A Fortress Monastery would obviously be the exception, rather than the rule. And, incidentally, rules for a space-going Fortress Monastery _are_ available - and they're comparable to a Ramilies-class star fortress. Yes, they're immensely difficult to bring down. No, they're not impervious. 



> I haven't played BFG, but are there rules for planets? I thought it was mostly space installations, strike craft, and warships?


BFG provides stats for air bases, missile silos, and defense laser installations. They, and their orbital counterparts, do not possess shields. Space stations, orbital docks, and Ramilies-class star fortresses do possess shields. Rules for massive planet-side fortresses aren't given, but they're not difficult to infer: they'd be equivalent to their same-scale orbital counterparts.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> I'm not trying to knock him - it's an easy misconception. But amphibious does not equal submersible.


From the wiki "An amphibious vehicle (or simply amphibian), is a vehicle that is a means of transport, viable on land as well as on (or under) water".

I think you missed out on my "or". Amphibious vehicles can travel on OR under water. A Chimera is an amphibious vehicle. That doesn't mean that the Chimera can travel under water.

I did a google search and did come up with an amphibious vehicle that can travel under water and travel on land is the sQuba.



Phoebus said:


> That's excellent when you consider that current-day 2000lb bombs can have adverse effects (collateral damage, not necessarily effective damage) out to that distance.


I'm no physics major (as the logistics thread proved), but I _think_ an equally powerful--in terms of joules--chemical explosion and focused laser blast would have a different area of effect. 

To my uneducated mind, I would think of a laser as an extremely, extremely, _extremely_ narrow shaped charge. If there is collateral damage, you had one hell of a powerful laser.

Whereas most bombs we use, I think, are more omnidirectional. So widespread damage is a matter of course (and actually desired sometimes).

This is my completely civilian, uneducated guess.



Phoebus said:


> And, incidentally, rules for a space-going Fortress Monastery are available


I know you weren't (necessarily) implying the Marines Errant Chapter Monastery was a space-based on, but theirs was a planet-based one. Just for the record.

It was strong enough to resist a couple dozen cruisers' worth of firepower and had enough fire power within it to destroy said fleet at the same time.

I'm sure there are certain outposts out there--heavily shield and heavily armored--but couldn't be bothered to keep up an equally powerful garrison.



Phoebus said:


> BFG provides stats for air bases, missile silos, and defense laser installations.


Hrm...interesting. To be fair, I don't recall any actual airbases carrying void shield themselves, but then again we don't see all too many airfields in WH40k. So that's sort of a wash there.

I'd take actual in game statics with a grain of salt since they may not have shields due to balance reasons.



Phoebus said:


> Rules for massive planet-side fortresses aren't given, but they're not difficult to infer: they'd be equivalent to their same-scale orbital counterparts.


I would think a ground-based fortress would be more powerful. You don't need to procide space for docking or maintaining ships. Nor do you need to allocate power for gravity, (as much for) heating, and other pesky things we can take for granted down on terra firma.

And without any further understanding on how void shields work, maybe the smaller area that they could conceivably cover would make them stronger? Spreading more void-strength less area, maybe? Do they work that way?


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

hailene said:


> From the wiki "An amphibious vehicle (or simply amphibian), is a vehicle that is a means of transport, viable on land as well as on (or under) water".


There was an early mod for tanks to make them amphibious, it was basically sealing the tank up tight and giving the exhaust or was it crew compartment an extension so that it could vent above water. The tanks move along the bottom of the water, under water. Although I've never hear one able to move underwater but not along the bottom .

Edit: Found them ww2 Tiger tanks, Leopard 2s, and T-90s, were/are able to move along the bottom.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Most modern tanks have a "snorkelling" ability. None can do anything other than drive along the river bed.

Many Armoured Personnel Carriers can actually float, some are specifically designed to be amphibious, the AAV-7 of the USMC springs to mind.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Many Armoured Personnel Carriers can actually float, some are specifically designed to be amphibious, the AAV-7 of the USMC springs to mind.


Is it just me that loves this butt ugly slab of metal?


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

hailene said:


> I did a google search and did come up with an amphibious vehicle that can travel under water and travel on land is the sQuba.


I got what you were driving at. Again, I'm just making a point regarding military applications. 



> I'm no physics major (as the logistics thread proved), but I _think_ an equally powerful--in terms of joules--chemical explosion and focused laser blast would have a different area of effect.
> 
> To my uneducated mind, I would think of a laser as an extremely, extremely, _extremely_ narrow shaped charge. If there is collateral damage, you had one hell of a powerful laser.
> 
> ...


We just got done with one thread wherein we were trying to point out that story-given effects might not correlate with real-world physics. Stay with me, partner! :biggrin:

Point being: lance-based orbital bombardment is, at the very least, very accurate by today's real-world standards. It can annihilate a battalion-size element within a considerably refined radius.



> I know you weren't (necessarily) implying the Marines Errant Chapter Monastery was a space-based on, but theirs was a planet-based one. Just for the record.


No worries. 



> It was strong enough to resist a couple dozen cruisers' worth of firepower and had enough fire power within it to destroy said fleet at the same time.


If you have access to the free BFG supplements from the GW website, a Ramilies-class and a Fortress Monastery definitely replicate the offensive firepower you describe. I'm not familiar enough with their shield system to stand by it, though. I just know that both are rated as more powerful than any battleship. 



> I'd take actual in game statics with a grain of salt since they may not have shields due to balance reasons.


I hear what you're saying, but I think it's a different matter when other assets within the game DO have shields.



> I would think a ground-based fortress would be more powerful. You don't need to procide space for docking or maintaining ships. Nor do you need to allocate power for gravity, (as much for) heating, and other pesky things we can take for granted down on terra firma.


I'm not sure that "space occupied" is necessarily an indication of potential offensive or defense power as much as it is one of function. Gravity control (a legitimate concern, but not one that seems to require undue power) aside, environmental protection (versus nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks) and support (to maintain oxygen, heating, and cooling while being sealed off) is something you would absolutely need in a ground-based fortress.



> And without any further understanding on how void shields work, maybe the smaller area that they could conceivably cover would make them stronger? Spreading more void-strength less area, maybe? Do they work that way?


Smaller ships don't have more powerful void shields as compared to larger ships in either BFG or the novels. Nor is this the case where Titans are concerned. The fortresses that _would_ have void shields would probably be the size of an orbital dock, a space station, or something larger. Even then, an orbital dock has less powerful shields than a Ramilies or a Blackstone Fortress.


----------

