# Heavy bombers in Warhammer 40k.



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Does anyone have any information about heavy bombers in the IOM, tid-bits and such about them? I mean bombers like B-52's and such airplanes. I have scoured Lexicanum for information but it seems like nobody have heavy bombers in the fluff.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

For their primary atmosphereic bomber we have the Marauder.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Marauder_Bomber#.UajnkJyHrZY

In space the Imperium of Man looks to the Starhawk.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Starhawk_Bomber#.UajnzpyHrZY


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I know about the bombers, I mentioned I have searched Lexicanum for heavy bombers. I mean Mauraders are fine, but I was looking for the big boys atmospherically.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I think that's as big as you're going to get, to my knowledge.

Look at it this way: Either 1. You need to minimize collateral damage at your target. A smaller bomber would probably be your deal. 2. You want to raze the area and salt the fields. Then you use an orbital bombardment from low orbiting warships.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Yeah and the IG is most of all an artillery-force, plus if I so need a heavy bomber in my fluff I can basically modify a Starhawk to be capable of atmospheric flight, I mean I basically went up against fluff in my story giving Rhinos to the Imperial Guard just to have men riding atop of them.

If you really want to do damage you send Deathstrikes and torpedoes from Dictators, which I envision as the ideal guardians of planets.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

In Double Eagle and The Guns of Tanith "Goliaths" are mentioned I think.... I'll check when I get home. Bigger and slower than Marauders, much bigger and slower.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Thunderhawks. They could serve if I disregard that the Space Marines have them only. They are big, ugly and bulky to serve that purpose.


----------



## Digg40k (Sep 7, 2008)

Presumably anything worth bombardment usually gets done from orbit.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

Beaviz81 said:


> I know about the bombers, I mentioned I have searched Lexicanum for heavy bombers. I mean Mauraders are fine, but I was looking for the big boys atmospherically.


they are the big boys


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> In Double Eagle and The Guns of Tanith "Goliaths" are mentioned I think....


I did a control+F search of my digital copies of those books. No bites for goliath.



Beaviz81 said:


> if I so need a heavy bomber in my fluff I can basically modify a Starhawk to be capable of atmospheric flight


I don't think that'd fly (literally). Look at the Skyhawk. It's not really aerodynamically sound nor does it appear to have sufficient wing span to generate enough lift for it to even fly. Which is fine, since it's a void-vessel and not intended to fly within an atmosphere.

The Marauder is capable of carrying 12,000 pounds worth of bombs. Or a single 10,000 kilogram guided bomb. Not exactly up to a B-52's 70,000 pound (31,500 kilogram) capacity, but it's still respectable. Plus we don't know how much more powerful a WH40k bomb is, pound for pound, than a modern bomb.



Beaviz81 said:


> Thunderhawks. They could serve if I disregard that the Space Marines have them only. They are big, ugly and bulky to serve that purpose.


Thunderhawks can't carry enough bombs to make them a strategic bomber. IA-2 says that the Thunderhawk is "A versatile aircraft combining orbital drop ship, gunship and _medium bomber_ roles..."

I mean, sure, in your fluff you might strip down a Thunderhawk's secondary armament (or even its primary weapon), get rid of its transport capacity, get rid of the extra armor, and make it into a real bomber. And then on top of it give it to the Imperial Guard.

But if you're going to go that far in trampling the fluff, why not just make up your own bomber and call it a day?


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I just hate inventing anything new, like a B-52-equivalent in the 40k.-universe when I can search for answers elsewhere, and Rhinos, well the Sister of Battle and the Arbitrators uses them. Plus my main chars basically are that well-connected as the planet supporting one of them produces everything from toothpicks to Emperor battleships. So I can see a very technologically advanced place pulling them in. And I resent the trampling of fluff, I prefer bending, I'm just taking rules and bending them and I also replace missing pieces of fiction with what has happened here on earth.

In the end I'm thankful for the responses as they got me thinking outside the box. Now I just must avoid making my chars into Mary Sues.


----------



## Deneris (Jul 23, 2008)

Chaos DOES have the Harbinger heavy bomber...


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

From "The Guns of Tanith" page 135. 

"Six minutes behind them came a mass wave of over 
three hundred heavy bombers. Most of these were lumbering, six-engined Magogs, painted an unreflective black. The Magog was a prop-driven, atmospheric type that had been in service for centuries, but the wave also included two dozen Behemoths, the awesome and ancient giants of Phantine Bomber Command."

There may be more description of them in there of them or in Double Eagle. Try searching in there. Dive bombers are also mentioned.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> There may be more description of them in there of them or in Double Eagle


From _Double Eagle_ and the perspective of an Imperial bomber pilot:

"Magogs, big and old and ugly. They’d used them back home on
Phantine during the final offensive, desperate to get aloft anything that could fly and fight. Here they were a standard bombing mainstay. No wonder Enothis had been punished so hard."

To give more context to the situation, an Imperial planet is being pushed back by a Chaos-led army. The Impeiral planet's PDF is throwing up whatever aircraft in a desperate attempt to fight back--including a bunch of antiquated aircraft.

I couldn't find anything more on the Behemoths in either of those two books. Based upon Jacobite's quote, I would say that the Behemoth is going to be your mainstay.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Double Eagle makes mention of an 8 engined Prop Driven bomber typically belonging to the Enothis PDF (presumably). These are either called "Shrike" Dive bombers, or are something else entirely, quite possibly the aforementioned "Magogs". 

The Marauders are however called "tactical" bombers; as opposed to Strategic bombers like the B52's, but these days, JDAM's and Cruise Missiles are much more effective in Tactical Bombing than Strategic bombing. I'm biased, but I honestly can't think of their being many roles for a Strategic Bomber that a Marauder Flight (loaded with Colossus Bombs (IIRC? the 10 ton bombs anyhow noted in IA1 1st edition) which may or may not have a n N/B/C warhead attached cannot fill in for in the event that an Orbital Bombardment is not available.

Nam, Dresden, and The Blitz showed that it takes more than just strategic bombing to demoralize threats. While the potential for the damage was there, it was readily countered by effective Night routine (no lights, dummy airfields, entrenched subterranean positions, etc) and counter fire (interceptors and ackack). If you can remove all of those, by virtue of something, then there's no reason to actually participate in it; by that stage you've either already won, and just need to move in to mop up (giving the defenders free cover and easily defensive positions), or you've nulllified the threatening positions; the war factories or the airfields, or the MSR's through other means.

Plus, in a universe when "live's lost" is considered currency, the Munitorum are more likely to say "put one bomber up with a fighter screen, put them in fast and low to avoid detection, then open up with a guided strike; which after the air-war fiasco at Armageddon 2, led to the design of the Destroyer, my favourite vehicle in 40K, ever. 

While not IoM, there was a super-sized bomber belonging to the Chaos forces the size of an "Onero", which is a 6 engine super-heavy orbital transport (one I believe was also in one of the Tanith novels, and brought down in one the books where Larkin kept seeing the dead?). Pther than its size; I can't find any reference in a quick scan through.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Vaz said:


> Double Eagle makes mention of an 8 engined Prop Driven bomber typically belonging to the Enothis PDF (presumably). These are either called "Shrike" Dive bombers, or are something else entirely, quite possibly the aforementioned "Magogs".


Magogs are mentioned to be 6 engined so it's probably not them. Something else.

And yes Marauder Destroyer. Sex with wings. Fucking love that thing!


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

Besides the Magogs I don't really see any strike craft capable of being heavy bombers mentioned in lore or Codex's. 

In my opinion I don't think 40k has a need for a long range strategic bomber simply because most wars/fights/battles within the books doesn't really cover a protracted war where you need them. Usually most fighting happens around Starports, major city hubs, or the massive Hives. There fore you only really need craft capable of bringing heavy ordnance to bear on the enemy like the Oerk bombers, or Magogs as mentioned above. I have yet to really read a book where entire worlds or continents were used as the battlefield, except "The Last Chancers" or "Steel Legion" part of the Imperial Guard Codex.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

emporershand89 said:


> I have yet to really read a book where entire worlds or continents were used as the battlefield, except "The Last Chancers" or "Steel Legion" Codex.


Siege of Terra. Balhaut. Calth. Macragge. Ganahedarak. Boros. Perlia. Tallarn. Armageddon (3 times, no less). Cadia.

Just to name a few.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

emporershand89 said:


> Besides the Magogs I don't really see any strike craft capable of being heavy bombers mentioned in lore or Codex's.
> 
> I have yet to really read a book where entire worlds or continents were used as the battlefield, except "The Last Chancers" or "Steel Legion" Codex.


Then you need to read more. Also the Steel Legion have never had a Codex. They have had army list but not a codex.



Jacobite said:


> From "The Guns of Tanith" page 135.
> 
> "but the wave also included two dozen Behemoths, the awesome and ancient giants of Phantine Bomber Command."





hailene said:


> Siege of Terra. Balhaut. Calth. Macragge. Ganahedarak. Boros. Perlia. Tallarn. Armageddon (3 times, no less). Cadia.
> 
> Just to name a few.


Plus Geron, Enthois, Jago, Aexe Cardinal and thats just Sabbat Worlds.


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

hailene said:


> Siege of Terra. Balhaut. Calth. Macragge. Ganahedarak. Boros. Perlia. Tallarn. Armageddon (3 times, no less). Cadia.
> 
> Just to name a few.


Hailene I'm gonna need the names of books in order to read into those. stating that they used heavy bomber class aircraft at those battles is like saying I dropped a nuclear bomb at Gettysburg (which is so not true,  ). Give me a novel or two and I'll look into them. 

Steel Legion never had a Codex; correct. I meant the Imperial Guard mentions Steel Legions use of them, as well as Death Korps of Krieg having used Heavy Bombers in their protracted Trench Warfare style of combat. 

The Imperiums like Germany prior to 1942; they have no need of Long-Range Strike Craft to attack strategic targets. What they don't hit with orbital bombardment they can strike with precision bombing using fighter-bomber craft. Germany never needed a heavy bomber until they started to attack the British Isles because there tactics never called for it. Additionally even during the "Battle of Britain" there targets were well within range of there flight time. Thus Germany missed a chance to bring heavy firepower to bear; same with the Imperium.

In my honest opinion though, what there air craft lack in firepower there artillery almost certainly makes up for it.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

emporershand89 said:


> stating that they used heavy bomber class aircraft at those battles is like


Before I go any further, I never said that they used heavy bombers (necessarily) in those battles. The part I was replying to was whether or not battles have, in fact, spanned entire continents or worlds. Those battles I listed included battles that were fought over continents or larger.



emporershand89 said:


> The Imperiums like Germany prior to 1942; they have no need of Long-Range Strike Craft to attack strategic targets.


Not to be nick-picky, but you'd sorta think they could have used a massive 4-engine bomber when they were trying to wage a strategic bombing campaign against the last real enemy they had left in mid '40.



emporershand89 said:


> Additionally even during the "Battle of Britain" there targets were well within range of there flight time.


Heavy bombers bring more to the table than extended range; they also bring a heavier payload and are (to my knowledge) generally better armed and more durable. All things that are very important when trying to destroy large, expansive targets deep within enemy territory.



emporershand89 said:


> In my honest opinion though, what there air craft lack in firepower there artillery almost certainly makes up for it.


In my opinion, there's not much room for a strategic bomber in the Imperial Guard or Navy's arsenals. I think the place they would shine would be in the PDF. That's a force that rarely has substantial naval forces at its beck and call. It would need a heavy bomber to give it long range punch. That or long range missiles.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

emporershand89 said:


> Hailene I'm gonna need the names of books in order to read into those. stating that they used heavy bomber class aircraft at those battles is like saying I dropped a nuclear bomb at Gettysburg (which is so not true,  ). Give me a novel or two and I'll look into them.
> 
> His post was listing conflicts which were over an entire planet not simply focussed on a single strategic location as you said:
> 
> ...


The heavy bomber portion of the fluff hasn't been developed really. This is the "problem", the reason why is that there is no obvious system to put them in. They are far too big and would fly too high for 40k and Apoc as well probably. Epic yeah that'd work but Epic was left by the wayside by GW years ago in terms of support. BFG they are too small for and it's in space. We are getting our info on it from BL and there is no rational need for them expand it. Maybe when Interceptor City comes out...


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Excellent point Jacobite, they are too much for even Epic and far too small for the normal stuff you hear about. That' fits with my impression as well. And I can see like fifty Thunderhawks or orbital Starhawks flying in formation at insane heights relasing a bomblod above a planet or even one closer in within the atmosphere bombing the enemies to smithereens as they fly above the air-ceiling and going clear of the anti-air-weaponry.


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

Jacobite said:


> This is the "problem", the reason why is that there is no obvious system to put them in.


Which I completely agree with. It would be interesting to see them "officially" develop a system for it.



Beaviz81 said:


> they are too much for even Epic


Now I have to ask if Epic has anything like this? I've personally never played it so my question is do they factor in for it; considering the scale they fight on?



hailene said:


> Not to be nick-picky, but you'd sorta think they could have used a massive 4-engine bomber when they were trying to wage a strategic bombing campaign against the last real enemy they had left in mid '40.


Yes....well that's how history played out. :biggrin: If you wish to debate this point is comes down to the fact that most of Nazi Germany's air strategy and tactics (and possibly even Ground) were developed during the Spanish Civil War, the Invasion of Poland, and other earlier conflicts that Hitler involved his growing nation in. They had no need at the time for more than the 2-engines Heinkel which could bomb targets that were in range. In fact a funny point to think on is that Germany never really bombed a opposing nations infrastructure or manufacturing facilities. This was a tactics developed later during the "Battle of Britain" and later used by the Allies to slowly choke the German war machine. Germany never really had the need therefore for long-range strategic bombing.

....and yes I know they bring more than just range. My point is if I can bomb your bunker that only 5 miles away why do i need a bigger plane when i can just make 100 planes and constantly bomb you non-stop? That was the Luftwaffe's mentality at first. It did bite them in the end though :grin:

Jacobite damn. :dunno: Didn't mean to ruin the parade......but I am actually going to by Double Eagle and read in on it. Though is that the only good source of Heavy Bombers? Additionally the Guns of Tanith only really mentions them a few times. It's not enough for me to really digest or use in a argument; but that's just me :biggrin:


Giving some more though on the matter my idea to you two is this. Why Heavy Bombers when they can use missiles eh? :victory:


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

emporershand89 said:


> If you wish to debate this point


I have a feeling you don't read your own posts very thoroughly.

Your post....I'll just quote it again.



emporershand89 said:


> The Imperiums like *Germany prior to 1942; they have no need of Long-Range Strike Craft to attack strategic targets*.


Bold added by me. You're saying that Germany didn't need a strategic bomber before 1942. I'm saying that it probably needed one before '42.

I think what you _meant_ to say was that Germany didn't develop a heavy bomber until 1942 (in the unfortunately specified form of the HE-177).



emporershand89 said:


> f you wish to debate this point is comes down to the fact that most of Nazi Germany's air strategy and tactics


To my knowledge, the lack of a real heavy bomber was because of the distribution of resources. The Heer got the biggest piece of the pie and the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine had to fight for the left overs. There wasn't enough pie left for the Luftwaffe to build fighters (to support the Heer) and tactical bombers (to support the Heer) AND to produce a meaningful number of heavy bombers (that wouldn't directly support the Heer). When the top priority was to make the Heer as effective as possible, what to cut was obvious.



emporershand89 said:


> This was a tactics developed later during the "Battle of Britain" and later used by the Allies to slowly choke the German war machine. Germany never really had the need therefore for long-range strategic bombing.


Incorrect. Stanley Baldwin already postulated this as early as 1932.



emporershand89 said:


> Why Heavy Bombers when they can use missiles eh?


Expense. Technological complexity.

A bomber, I think, is much easier to maintain than a missile of equal accuracy. Also probably easier to make.

Not all Imperial planets or forces would have access to long range, accurate, powerful missiles either.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

What exactly we are talking about? "Heavy" bomber can mean many things. 

In the WW2 sense it was a bomber capable of carrying a signficant payload over an extended range. A Landcaster or B17 over Berlin would only be carrying in the order of 2 tonnes of bombs at best. Modern single seat fighters can do that. 

In essence the "role" of the WW2 heavy bombers was to attack the heart of German industry. In that they proved more or less ineffective. Where they did excel tho' was in destroying cities or to say it plainly killing the enemy population.

As early as 1939 and 40 the Luftwaffe showed with the bombing of Warsaw and Amsterdam in particular that attacks against the enemy population centres by panicking the population and so forth. 

This continued with the RAF bombing Berlin which had a disproportionate response with Hitler cracking the shots and ordering British cities to be bombed, thus alleviating the pressure on the RAF who were suffering greatly from tactical strikes on their home airfields. "The Blitz" didn't have the effect it might of as the population still saw the RAF fighting back. Much later in the war the V1's and even more so the V2's nearly succeeded where the bombers had failed, because the population felt helpless against them. This continued with the allied efforts against German cities culminating with the fire bombings of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Japan.

This lead to the development of the Strategic Bomber. Bombers that have to role of destroying the enemy population, the B52 of the OP being the premier example.

Soooooo all that means that "heavy" bomber like a B52 is a bomber designed to eliminate an enemy population. 

An atmospheric bomber that does this is really not required in the 41st Century. It would only find a use on those few worlds where you have opposing populations on the one planet, which doesn't seem to be the case anywhere that I have heard of.

In an era of orbital warfare if you want to destroy a city you just drop an asteroid on it from orbit. Job done.

Any thing short of that can be handled by the Marauders


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> A Landcaster or B17 over Berlin would only be carrying in the order of 2 tonnes of bombs at best.


The Lancaster could run around with 14,000 pounds of bombs. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> Modern single seat fighters can do that.


I think we also have to keep in mind of the technological limits of the day.

I'm (guessing) a WW2 light cruiser had a heavier broadside than a first-rate ship of the line. Still, no one would say that a first-rate ship wasn't a capital ship during its day. (Not to mention what constituted a first-rate, second-rate, ect ship changed as technology and ambitious ship-wrights lead to increasingly powerful vessels.)



Magpie_Oz said:


> As early as 1939 and 40...


They reinforced the lesson learned by the Japanese a couple of years earlier.



Magpie_Oz said:


> This lead to the development of the Strategic Bomber.


How so? As a concept, the idea of bombing your opponent into submission had been around for almost a decade. Maybe even as early as the zeppelin raids in WW1.

As an actual product? The B-17 had its maiden flight in '35.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Soooooo all that means that "heavy" bomber like a B52 is a bomber designed to eliminate an enemy population.


I don't believe it's anything that specific. Something probably closer to a bomber that has amongst the longest range of its contemporaries sand carries a large bomb-load (again, compared to its contemporaries). 

Whether they're used to wipe out an enemy population is a doctrinal decision. Not something inherent to the design.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> The Lancaster could run around with 14,000 pounds of bombs.


Not to Berlin it couldn't



hailene said:


> I think we also have to keep in mind of the technological limits of the day.


True enough, point is as technology changes and capability changes so to do the names. What I am saying is that a WW2 "heavy bomber" performed a role that now days can be carried out by a very different platform.



hailene said:


> They reinforced the lesson learned by the Japanese a couple of years earlier.


Yep for sure. If you go way back even in the very first days of flight it was recognised that people could be terrorised by attack form the air.



hailene said:


> How so? As a concept, the idea of bombing your opponent into submission had been around for almost a decade. Maybe even as early as the zeppelin raids in WW1.
> As an actual product? The B-17 had its maiden flight in '35.





hailene said:


> The concept of a direct city attack weapon didn't arise until quite late in the war. Before that time the general prinicple was to attack industry and infrastructure. The Strategic Bomber mission, which to be fair would include the raids towards the end of the war, was specifically designed to raze cites and kill population.





hailene said:


> I don't believe it's anything that specific. Something probably closer to a bomber that has amongst the longest range of its contemporaries sand carries a large bomb-load (again, compared to its contemporaries).
> 
> Whether they're used to wipe out an enemy population is a doctrinal decision. Not something inherent to the design.


Sure it is.
Look at the contemporaries.

F-111 and B52 or you could also say F35 and B2

The F-111 is optimised for low level penetration and precise strike so it is fast, VG, small bomb load but carries a huge suite of avionics which allow it to hit a small target with high accuracy. This includes precision delivered nuclear weapons, tac nukes. It is designed to thread a needle.

The B52 Huge bomb load, high altitude, no super duper avionics for precise delivery, it's designed to hit cites "over there".

A B52 can't do what an F111 could because it is designed to hit cities not bridges. (Granted retro fitting means now days it can but that is a different story)


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Not to Berlin it couldn't


Could and did.

With a bomb load of 14,000 pounds, it had a range of 1660 miles. More than enough to reach Berlin and make it home to British airfields.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/691874/Lancaster



Magpie_Oz said:


> What I am saying is that a WW2 "heavy bomber" performed a role that now days can be carried out by a very different platform.


With a nuclear weapon, maybe.

With the increase capabilities of our aircraft, so have our costs. We can't field an airforce of several thousand bombers like we did during World War 2. A modern fighter-bomber might be able to carry as much as an inter-war heavy bomber (which the B-17 was), but we couldn't hope to match the weight of ordnance dropped.

If you're saying that we could achieve similar results with the use of less, but more accurately guided, bombs, I can agree with you there.

Basically, on a micro-scale, yes, a modern fighter bomber can do what an old B-17 could (and better). In a macroeconomic sense, it's not so true.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Yep for sure. If you go way back even in the very first days of flight it was recognised that people could be terrorised by attack form the air.


Ah, c'mon, don't do this to me, Magpie. You're comparing apples to oranges.

You're saying the Nazis were the first ones to utilize terror bombing as a weapon. I made a minor correction and said the Japanese did it earlier.

Although, to be honest, I think my statement even later in my last post is even more correct. The Germans scared the piss out of the British with their zeppelin raids (way outside the actual damage the zeppelins caused). We could still probably give the credit to the Germans--just an entire war earlier.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The concept of a direct city attack weapon didn't arise until quite late in the war.


No. As I said earlier, Stanely Baldwin already suggested (though he has proven incorrect so far, but then again we haven't had a wide-spread nuclear war yet) that bombers could be used to utterly crush an enemy's morale by killing more civilians, faster, than your enemy.

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

As a piece of doctrine, Germans switched to directly attacking British cities midway through the Battle of Britain. Or September 14, 1940. Not quite late in the war.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The B52 Huge bomb load, high altitude, no super duper avionics for precise delivery, it's designed to hit cites "over there".


I'm sure if we compared the payloads delivered by B-52 on cities versus other targets, it would heavily favor "other".

Edit: Off to bed. I might be able to reply in the afternoon (Pacific time). We'll see.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> With a nuclear weapon, maybe.
> 
> With the increase capabilities of our aircraft, so have our costs. We can't field an airforce of several thousand bombers like we did during World War 2. A modern fighter-bomber might be able to carry as much as an inter-war heavy bomber (which the B-17 was), but we couldn't hope to match the weight of ordnance dropped.
> 
> ...


That's not even remotely what I am talking about. I am talking about role not ability to carry out that role.

The objectives of WW2 bombers was to destroy specific targets. Schwienfurt Ballbearing factory, Ploiești Oil Refinaery. I.E single target attacks. These were strikes against single targets. later in the war the mission changed to simply attacking the general area (because by and large that's what they were doing anyway)

Modern Jet fighters are designed to carry out the point strike of the early WW2 Bomber, Modern Strategic Bombers (B52's) are designed to carry out the later war mission.



hailene said:


> Ah, c'mon, don't do this to me, Magpie.


What you mean agree with you ?




hailene said:


> I'm sure if we compared the payloads delivered by B-52 on cities versus other targets, it would heavily favor "other".


Even in WW2 "Strategic Bombers" were used in a tactical strike role, the "carpet bombing" in and around Caen for example. It was still area bombing however hitting areas the size of cites. 

Similarly the Arclight Strikes of Vietnam where the Ho Chi Minh Trail was carpet bombed . 

To carry out these attacks the aircraft had to be re-equipped (and the crews retrained), it was a mission different to what the aircraft was inherently designed for, that being city attack.


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

hailene said:


> I think what you meant to say was that Germany didn't develop a heavy bomber until 1942 (in the unfortunately specified form of the HE-177).


Well to interject this debate gentlemen. I do do believe I said what I meant. The Germans never really deployed a heavy bomber during WWII. In fact there only heavy bomber, the Heinkel 177 as you so kindly pointed out, was never reall used. As Wikipedia states.....



> Heinkel also provided the Luftwaffe's only operational heavy bomber, the Heinkel He 177, although this was never deployed in significant numbers


Which in my opinion Wikipedia is the last site I'd trust but it makes my point. German tactics never really called for heavy bombers; which I explained in my previous post. Seriously, do you read my posts hailene?



hailene said:


> There wasn't enough pie left for the Luftwaffe to build fighters (to support the Heer) and tactical bombers (to support the Heer) AND to produce a meaningful number of heavy bombers (that wouldn't directly support the Heer).


How wrong that is, they certainly had more than enough. How do you think they carried on the constant bombing of London for almost a year and a half? They were producing fighters and training pilots faster than the Brits; most of these resources being drawn from capture nations like France/Poland/and the Baltic region. I will agree the Heer as given priority, but there was plenty until mid-1944.



hailene said:


> Stanley Baldwin


Your joking me right? :ireful2: As someone with a Bachelors in History; concentration European Conflicts, I find what you said eerily wrong and offensive. unish: . Baldwin was a politician, not a tactician. He was the one who claimed Germany would never catch up to the RAF in terms of numbers (the "50 percentile margin). He was wrong. He also was the one who went against rearmament was was widely responsible for Britain not being prepared for World War 2. I mean bloody Churchill even blamed him for the issues the UK faced initially at the onset of war; attacking him and his allies on the rearmament issue. Just saying you should have your facts stated before you throw a name like that out. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> As early as 1939 and 40 the Luftwaffe showed with the bombing of Warsaw and Amsterdam in particular that attacks against the enemy population centres by panicking the population and so forth.


Can I just say this was done with the popular Heinkel 111, and the infamous Junker Ju 87 Dive Bomber(nicknamed the Stuka). Neither of these could be classified a Heavy Bomber just because of payload, size, and operational range. If anything Magpie hailene and I were debating the effectiveness of Heavy Bombers and I made the comparison to Germany's tactics during WW2 as an example. In all honesty you could say the same thing about any Third World nation today. Why does the Syrian government not use heavy bombers against rebels, or Somalia pirates use them against ships, or why the U.S has cut down on the number of heavy bomber wings within it's military. It all comes down to the simple fact they don't require them....as you said above


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Well I thought more of modern tactics to be honest. They uses B-52s with B-2s and fighter-bombers mostly, the thousands of bombers is a thing of the past as hitting your target, hitting your target, hitting your target is the key now, and in my fluff I prefer to look as modern as possible at the Imperial Guard and Navy, but it must also be said the Imperial Guard is mostly an artillery-force, they call in the Basilisks and Manticores in my opinion, and only very lucky regiments gets close with the Imperial Navy.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

emporershand89 said:


> Well to interject this debate gentlemen. I do do believe I said what I meant. The Germans never really deployed a heavy bomber during WWII. In fact there only heavy bomber, the Heinkel 177 as you so kindly pointed out, was never reall used. As Wikipedia states.....
> 
> Which in my opinion Wikipedia is the last site I'd trust but it makes my point. German tactics never really called for heavy bombers; which I explained in my previous post. Seriously, do you read my posts hailene?


True enough, by the time they might have needed a heavy bomber the opportunity had passed.

Germany, with bases in France, didn't need a heavy bomber because they didn't have to fly across half of Europe to their targets. The He-111 as you say was able to carry out the terror campaign against London and Coventry etc quite well. 

Later on the V-1's and 2's were quite successful in the population attack mission.

Also the place they really needed to bomb, the US, far out of reach.



emporershand89 said:


> Can I just say this was done with the popular Heinkel 111, and the infamous Junker Ju 87 Dive Bomber(nicknamed the Stuka). Neither of these could be classified a Heavy Bomber just because of payload, size, and operational range.


For sure. The whole of my post was building the framework of "what is a Heavy Bomber" by showing how the MISSION ("population attack" ) had come into being.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

WWII seems to have merely been the design. The Nazis lost because they hadn't any decent bombers beyond the Stuka which short range and direct attack ended up doing more harm than good, but despite the planes of the IOM looking like WWII-bombers I dismiss that tactic as stupid unless against a more advanced race and I personally like fiction to be realistic and that's mainly fighter-bombers, strategic bombers and helis right now.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Beaviz81 said:


> WWII seems to have merely been the design. The Nazis lost because they hadn't any decent bombers beyond the Stuka which short range and direct attack ended up doing more harm than good, but despite the planes of the IOM looking like WWII-bombers I dismiss that tactic as stupid unless against a more advanced race and I personally like fiction to be realistic and that's mainly fighter-bombers, strategic bombers and helis right now.


In a nutshell if your original question is "What strategic/population attack bombers are in 40k?" then the answer is none, they are not needed, use an asteroid.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Yeah and your discussion about WWII is off-topic, and little use for me, maybe you should take that privately.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Perhaps if you give out a bit more information on the question you might get a more succinct answer.

"but I was looking for the big boys atmospherically." doesn't narrow it down much because " "Heavy" bomber can mean many things. "


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Okay I'm in error there, that I admit, but I asked for B-52s not Lancasters, that was quite clear from the get-go, and with heavy bombers they are like the B-52s flying high and slowly enough for anything not to take it down. But my point stands you brought the topic off the rails by discussing WWII.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Not sure how relevant your studies were into Baldwin. He did far more for rearmament than Neville Chamberlaine OR Churchill did. Churchill was a charismatic war leader, whose insights in the Boer War were well applied to shepherding the scared little lambs of Great Britain.

The numerous setbacks that British Forces suffered early on required a scape-goat, and Baldwin was an easy target; after he tried to appease Hitler; funny how Churchill neglects to admit his own admiration for Hitler or Mussolini. Churchill was a war-mongler however, who was ambitious and clever; he took advantage of that.

Post-War, Churchill was everyones hero; he could do know wrong. The post war years were among the least critical in British journalistic history; I think it was compared recently to the Iraq WMD Fiasco with Judith Miller and co as "being complicit in selling a lie"; and consequentially, public accounts of Baldwin's vilification are to be moderated by a distinct presence of bias against a former political target; one who was no longer in office.

It's like Cameron blaming Brown for the shit he's put the country in at the moment. Brown can't do fuck all about it, he has to grin and bear it; the Tories on the whole strip the country bare to line their own pockets, or to improve international community standing, giving billions to the EU who grant it out willy nilly on retarded "arts" projects, while the country wallows in post economic "crash" and can't get itself out; he then Blames brown.

Same thing applies here.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Beaviz81 said:


> Okay I'm in error there, that I admit, but I asked for B-52s not Lancasters, that was quite clear from the get-go, and with heavy bombers they are like the B-52s flying high and slowly enough for anything not to take it down. But my point stands you brought the topic off the rails by discussing WWII.


If you look back the topic had changed to include WW2 background long before I mentioned anything about it.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Sorry then I just swept down with the axe now and struck you. But I basically think the Starhawks would be the IOM's main bomber due to it's size at more advanced places. But WWII-tactics doesn't really fit into my view of the IOM, they are much more competent usually.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Beaviz81 said:


> Sorry then I just swept down with the axe now and struck you. But I basically think the Starhawks would be the IOM's main bomber due to it's size at more advanced places. But WWII-tactics doesn't really fit into my view of the IOM, they are much more competent usually.


I guess that all comes back to the all important definition of what you are looking for.

Starhawk - Warhammer 40K Wiki - Space Marines, Chaos, planets, and more

says that the Starhawk is a Space bomber without atmospheric capability who's primary role is to attack Capital Starships and not planetary targets.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The objectives of WW2 bombers was to destroy specific targets. Schwienfurt Ballbearing factory, Ploiești Oil Refinaery. I.E single target attacks. These were strikes against single targets. later in the war the mission changed to simply attacking the general area (because by and large that's what they were doing anyway)


I thought we've already been over this. Concerted efforts to bomb large targets, like cities, happened way before. At least as early as '37 in the case of the Japanese.

You yourself stated the Germans did it as early as '39 and '40.



Magpie_Oz said:


> What you mean agree with you ?


No, I was talking more on how you tend to dig in and deflect questions.

You said as much that the Germans were interested in attacking cities and their populations as means to achieving victory. I added the Japanese did as well.

Was it developed late in the war or utilized at the start of it?



Magpie_Oz said:


> It was still area bombing however hitting areas the size of cites.


Attacking city sized targets !=Attacking populations within cities.

Still, I will admit, the primary purpose of the B-52 does seem to be as a retaliatory nuclear strike against Soviet aggression.

To say that it was built only to hit distant cities would be a discredit to its designers and those who gave the okay to fund it. I think it, like most military hardware, is designed to fulfill as many roles as it feasibly can. This would probably include bombing cities and other targets.



emporershand89 said:


> Well to interject this debate gentlemen. I do do believe I said what I meant. The Germans never really deployed a heavy bomber during WWII. In fact there only heavy bomber, the Heinkel 177 as you so kindly pointed out, was never reall used. As Wikipedia states.....


Then please reread what you said. You said the Germans never NEEDED a heavy bomber as opposed to never truly DEVELOPING a heavy bomber.

It's difficult to hold a conversation when one side isn't aware of what it is actually saying as opposed to what it is trying to say.



emporershand89 said:


> Which in my opinion Wikipedia is the last site I'd trust but it makes my point. German tactics never really called for heavy bombers; which I explained in my previous post. Seriously, do you read my posts hailene?


Their attempt to bomb London into submission probably could have used a heavy bomber.

The two problems with the He-177 is that they tried to do too much within a single frame and the fact it came too late.

It wasn't all that good of a heavy bomber and by the time it could have been produced in meaningful numbers, any attempt to bomb Britain into surrendering would have cost more resources than the German airforce could muster.

A strategic bombing campaign of the British isles was no longer feasible--that window had closed back in '40.



emporershand89 said:


> How wrong that is, they certainly had more than enough. How do you think they carried on the constant bombing of London for almost a year and a half? They were producing fighters and training pilots faster than the Brits


What bizzaro universe are you getting your information from? From wiki (it has citations, but I haven't double checked their numbers, if you find other numbers to the contrary I'd be happy to look them up):

"Overall, by 2 November, the RAF fielded 1,796 pilots, an increase of over 40% from July 1940's count of 1,259 pilots. Based on German sources (from a Luftwaffe intelligence officer Otto Bechtle attached to KG 2 in February 1944) translated by the Air Historical Branch, Stephen Bungay asserts German fighter and bomber "strength" declined without recovery, and that from August – December 1940, the German fighter and bomber strength declined by 30 and 25 percent."

"Luftwaffe losses for August numbered 774 aircraft to all causes, representing 18.5 per cent of all combat aircraft at the beginning of the month. Fighter Command's losses in August were 426 fighters destroyed, amounting to 40 per cent of 1,061 fighters available on 3 August. In addition, 99 bombers and 27 other types were destroyed between 1 and 29 August.

From July to September, the Luftwaffe's loss records indicate the loss of 1,636 aircraft, 1,184 to enemy action. This represented 47 per cent of the initial strength of single-engined fighters, 66 per cent of twin-engined fighters, and 45 per cent of bombers. This indicates the Germans were running out of aircrews as well as aircraft."

And the Germans never put in a concerted effort to bomb Britain for a "year and a half". The Battle of Britain itself only lasted 3 months.

Unless you trying to add the German rocket attacks? Which would be odd since those did not include actual bombers.



emporershand89 said:


> Baldwin was a politician, not a tactician.


Absolutely moot for the purposes of this discussion.

The strategy of bombing an opponent into submission was on the table. 

With further research, I've discovered that an Italian general, Giulio Douhet, wrote a book on strategic bombing as early as 1921. Even earlier than Baldwin's famous speech.

Even if Baldwin was wrong in other matters, doesn't mean he was incorrect in his belief in strategic bombing. 



Beaviz81 said:


> Okay I'm in error there, that I admit, but I asked for B-52s not Lancasters, that was quite clear from the get-go,


Why not Lancasters? Lancasters are heavy bombers and served a very similar role to that of a B-52.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Who said it had to leave space? It could easily be converted to such a thing and the crew would be easier to assemble as they don't need a Navigator or Astropath to do that. Infact they only need aircrew and since not being off long-term they could get rid of much storage for bombs.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Beaviz81 said:


> Who said it had to leave space?


Why use a bomber at all then? Just a low orbiting warship with some of its smaller batteries.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Not every planet have a cruiser in low orbit.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

If the Imperial Guard is there, there is almost a guarantee that there's a warship in orbit.

I guess a world's PDF could use the Starhawk as a ghetto orbital bombardment, but most worlds also have an SDF they could use.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

The PDF could if their commissar was an off-worlder and not a PDF-commissar but a real one I guess or that they were well-connected enough to have some pull in the Imperial Navy.

And many places the warships comes and then disappears to face a new worse threat, which would cut it short the bombers received from orbit that's why the Imperial Guard is such an artillery-force.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Not sure where you're bringing in a Commissar. They are completely irrelevant to the Navy while they are not "on ship". And most Commissar's are off-worlders, precisedly because of the role they take in the Munitorum.

Ground PDF Forces as shown in Double Eagle have big bombers; but they're outclassed by the Marauders; to answer the question about "big bombers", or bombers which act in a strategic role, commiting "Arc Light" like in 'Nam, there just isn't the need for them, similar to how I asked about "Aquatic" forces.

If they're needed, they'll be localized assets. Similar to how Ordinatus are (for the most part). There aren't many foes a Strategic Bombing campaign can be really effective about, and Tactical Bombing instead is much more viable.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Commissars serve onboard ships, and they could then likely have a few vox-overrides making them able to direct the fire of an Imperial Navy-ship.

And you are wrong about the strategic bombing against the orks and the Tyranids they would pay huge dividens a few Starhawks bombing at the right time could essentially turn the tide of a battle against the Tyranids if they hit their target right with each dropping maybe over 100 tons of bombs right in the face of the Domimatrix. Though I admit a Deathstrike is more likely to be tossed at them.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Beaviz81 said:


> Who said it had to leave space?


You did ?



Beaviz81 said:


> I mean bombers like B-52's and such *airplanes*.





Beaviz81 said:


> but I was looking for the big boys *atmospherically*.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

The thingy evolved. And atmospherically means to the stratosphere and beyond as I can see Starhawks operate even in the ceiling of the mesosphere which is just under the level where the international space station is at. Okay maybe not but I can see them doing that anyway.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

All sources I can find state pretty clearly the Starhawk has no atmospheric capability.

The ISS is at about 400klm, well above the Mesosphere which ends at about 120.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Beaviz81 said:


> Commissars serve onboard ships, and they could then likely have a few vox-overrides making them able to direct the fire of an Imperial Navy-ship.
> 
> And you are wrong about the strategic bombing against the orks and the Tyranids they would pay huge dividens a few Starhawks bombing at the right time could essentially turn the tide of a battle against the Tyranids if they hit their target right with each dropping maybe over 100 tons of bombs right in the face of the Domimatrix. Though I admit a Deathstrike is more likely to be tossed at them.


Strategic bombing is intended to cause morale victories. Those two forces are the ones LEAST possible to be affected by it. What you are talking about is TACTICAL. My job is as a Forward Air Controller in the military; this is something i know a little bit about.

And in regards to commisars on ships, yeah, sure. But a commisar on the ground would not be able to command a ship to come,the captain would flick the bird, especially when the Navy ship was half a sector away. He could request aid from nearby naval vessels, but any commander in the theatre could do the same.

As for hundreds of tons of bombs, the only vessel i know of carrying ANYTHING near a hundred tons of anything short of a mass orbital lander is the Thunderhawk Transporter which is not a bomber. While 40k isn't known for its physics reliability, at the least that can be explaines as 'only the best for astartes'; guard, or specifically Navy, would not have that level of craftsmanship put into their equipment or invested into mass production. 

in the falklands, Op Black Buck was a targeted attack designed to render the airfield unusable. That was TACTICAL. It carries the same payload as a Marauder, 10k Kg, yet a Marauder also carries 4 Heavy Bolters and a pair of Lascannons. Heavy Bolters each fire a 25mm rocket assisted explosive round. An Apache has a single 30mm cannon, as a comparison.

In vietnam, arc light raids were 2km by 5km rectangles of razed earth, designed to destroy enemy trenchs and subterranean supply lines and bunkers. That was TACTICAL. They were utilised by B52's who operated out of Guam. They carried 3x the ordnance of a marauder. They were deemed failures as they were utilising dumb iron bombs. Op Linebacker 2 was the Buffs last big show in that conflict, and again were considered indecisive (political terms for failure), again used tactically.

In Afghanistan, the BUFFs once more operated but this this time operated at immense altitudes out range of triple A or SAM strikes. To get the bombs to hit while often called in danger close they use Guided bombs, called JDAM's. To utilise this firepower, the aircraft often set off underarmed with a fraction of their fuel and bombload, so that they could actually make it back, reducing loitre time over target and winchester threshold.

In WW2, raids on manufacturing districts result were tactical. As was Pearl Harbour. Dresden, the Blitz, and Little Boy were strategic strikes to demoralize opponents into not fighting by targeting civilians, not 'valid' military or industrial targets and infrastructure.

Dropping a ton of Ordnance has been shown in Vraks when over 60 marauders loosed all stores on a target. That is over 600,000 kg of ordnance. However they were tactocal, not strategic. There are no strategic bombers, because warfare now does not call for a Strategic victory when there is a better platform to deliver it by. Such as through orbital strikes.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Okay I relent, you are correct, the IOM likely doesn't do much of strategic bombing anyway, and it comes from their true strength the Imperial Navy.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Chaos has Harbinger Bombers, which are HUGE 4+x the size of a rhino.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

A source would be fine as I couldn't find that at Lexicanum.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Beaviz81 said:


> A source would be fine as I couldn't find that at Lexicanum.


Harbinger - Lexicanum
Harbinger - Warhammer 40K Wiki - Space Marines, Chaos, planets, and more


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I know where I have seen that one before 6973 Deep Freeze Defender - Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki


----------

