# Why don't Imperial guard have sea navy



## Soviet Lord (Nov 6, 2011)

Hello heretics!!
I was always wondering why the Imperial guard dont have sea navy
Is it because the oceans on the planets are acidic or something?
What do you think??


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

They do. They have both amphibious vehicles, flyers and GW has said before that there is various ships and boats that they can use.

In a game that is about land combat with stories based around said land combat, the navy does take a back-seat. (forget back-seat, they never got into the car to start with)

However on planets with pre-established colonies, the PDF will run the planet navy or there will even be a separate navy all together.

However, GW has said that Marines (who's name comes from Marine, pertaining to water) does NOT have a navy or even boats. Tanks are amphibious but otherwise they will rely on flyers or jump-packs to engage sea-bound foes.


----------



## Lythurienne (Nov 13, 2011)

I would imagine that they do, however 40k is pretty land based, as said earlier. If water naval units were involved, it'd probably be a different game completely (somewhat like Aeronautica from ForgeWorld). 

I also think another reason it's not really brought up in 40k much is that there might be confusion between the Imperial Navy, and the... well... Imperial Guard Navy. Space is probably the new "ocean" in the 41st millenium 

It'd make a cool minigame though - perhaps a variant on the Battlefleet Gothic ruleset? (in my opinion the best game GW do)


----------



## Soviet Lord (Nov 6, 2011)

Thanks guys!


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

If you want any books with mention of a naval presence, I'd recommend Flesh and Iron by Henry Zou.


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

why sail across the sea when you can fly above it? and probebly alot faster


----------



## Soviet Lord (Nov 6, 2011)

Thanks!
I'll look it up))


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Soviet Lord said:


> Hello heretics!!
> I was always wondering why the Imperial guard dont have sea navy
> Is it because the oceans on the planets are acidic or something?
> What do you think??


Terra's oceans have long since vanished: they are all arid plains now (unless there is an exception that I haven't heard of).


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

the-ad-man said:


> why sail across the sea when you can fly above it? and probebly alot faster


Weapons Platform, Command Outpost and High Volume transport?

That's kinda why we still have navies and boats in general.


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Turning my Necrons into an armada of robotic pirates, this is quite relevant to my interests. Flesh and Iron, right?


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> Turning my Necrons into an armada of robotic pirates, this is quite relevant to my interests. Flesh and Iron, right?


Arrr J!M 74D, I be 10nG J0hN ArG3N71uM?


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Grokfog said:


> Arrr J!M 74D, I be 10nG J0hN ArG3N71uM?


If you could not type like that again... that'd be great


----------



## The Gunslinger (Apr 4, 2011)

well look at it this way once in history a nations military was measured by its navy... not anymore. naval warfare has taken a huge step back since ww2, id imagine by the 41st milenium it would be completely redundent.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

> well look at it this way once in history a nations military was measured by its navy... not anymore. naval warfare has taken a huge step back since ww2, id imagine by the 41st milenium it would be completely redundent.


Pretty much this. Naval warfare lost prominence due to the emergence of the battles for air-superiority. Though navies are Not entirely redundant; 



> Weapons Platform, Command Outpost and High Volume transport?
> 
> That's kinda why we still have navies and boats in general.


Thats what it probably is in the 40k universe; naval ships and features would still have their own functions since you tend to carry more supplies on ships than on aircraft. But I agree, the overall effectiveness of oceanic fleet-based combat would be limited, since they'd probably just bombard any fleet from outer-space- since typically not much collateral damage in the middle of an ocean.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

There's also the problem of transportation. Shipping and deploying men, vehicles and aircraft is a lot easier than naval vessels would be. 

There also doesn't seem to be much need for naval vessels when you have space ships.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Boc said:


> If you could not type like that again... that'd be great


Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I take it you're not fluent in geek/leet speak then Boc? :grin:


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

Grokfog said:


> Methinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> I take it you're not fluent in geek/leet speak then Boc? :grin:


:victory: I think it's more due to this located here. :

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1




> Please post coherently! We at Heresy-Online have a minimum (and relatively lax) standard for spelling and grammar, and you will observe it to the best of your abilities. Nobody expects textbook perfection, and we know that typos happen. We understand that English may not be your first language, or that you may have disabilities or impairments, and we sympathize...but we still ask that you take the time and put your best effort into your posts.
> 
> This is not just a courtesy to your fellow posters, who may have to decipher a rich tapestry of netspeak and grammatical torment just to find out what you're saying, it's also doing yourself a favour in the long run. Unintelligible posts filled with chatroom shorthand and linguistic atrocities do NOT attract favourable attention. By the time a poster unearths what you're trying to say, they're usually so annoyed that they're not going to give you a helpful reply.
> 
> ...


.

You did read it when you signed up yeah? You agreed to supply the moderators with donor organs too.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Grokfog said:


> Methinks thou dost protest too much.
> 
> I take it you're not fluent in geek/leet speak then Boc? :grin:


I think it had more to do with it being against forum rules. It was also annoying.  


As for boats n shit, this is generally handled by the PDF of each planet relevant to the ocean situation of that world.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I was going to make exactly that point. From a planetary point of view a marine navy is entirely defensive and would therefore be considered as part of the planets defensive network. It would have no effect outside of its home planet. Transportation and deployment of a maritime navy would also be extremely difficult. Besides for coastal work titans can wade anyway.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Moonschwine said:


> You did read it when you signed up yeah? You agreed to supply the moderators with donor organs too.


Shhhhh... don't tell them!

Primarily, I agree with the aforementioned notion that sea-faring forces are more or less outdated by the air forces of the time, especially space-atmospheric bombers or simple orbital bombardment from outside the range where surface vessels are likely able to reach out and touch you in your no-no place.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Ah, I see, so I attempt to make a joke by mixing treasure island and my opinion that all necrons speak geek, and get smacked with forum rules. 

Oh well, I'll bear that in mind guys. Thanks for putting me right


----------



## Farseer Darvaleth (Nov 15, 2009)

One of the Imperial Bastion novels is FULL of Imperial Sea Navy. Can't remember what they're called exactly, but the book was Flesh and Iron. Brilliant read, loved it.


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

Grokfog said:


> Ah, I see, so I attempt to make a joke by mixing treasure island and my opinion that all necrons speak geek, and get smacked with forum rules.
> 
> Oh well, I'll bear that in mind guys. Thanks for putting me right


You made an inaccurate assumption. I strongly suspect Necrons don't speak geek, they speak death. As zombies have a predilection towards eating human brains, or brains in general I suppose and indeed moan their desire for the juicy grey matter, Necron have a propensity towards killing you. 

It's something to do with you breathing that they really have a problem with. So, at the very least, you have to admit that necron are at least equal opportunity killers. 

I really think that necron might have more in common in terms of their communication with a Dalek ("Exterrrrrrminaaaaate") than they do with a teenage inhabitant of an internet-savvy forum. 

If it makes you feel any better, I did laugh when I saw it, just as I died a little on the inside for being able to read it so easily.


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

In terms of the whole navel component of 40K, I suspect that the reality is that most races could care less about oceans. 

Neither a significant resource, or a particularly helpful strategic foothold, protecting oceans or engaging in sea-based warfare would likely go poorly for those limited to using sea-faring vehicles. 

Consider why we fought at sea in our short history. 

Shipping lanes were priced commodities and defending those as a strategically necessary component of a functional war effort. 

Countries of interest (Japan, England) were islands. Without some MASSIVE amount of air transport, you really don't have many ways to wage war with an island if you don't have a strong navel presence. 

In the 40K universe, navel deployment would be a low level assignment, with low risk and menial work - if they are transporting things via sea, it's probably not overly critical or needed in any timely manner. I am sure all races that have technology account for aquatic and sea-based transportation, but I doubt it's a significant consideration for their military and they certainly wouldn't feel the need for any resources to be assigned to navel defense.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

aranelthemithra said:


> If it makes you feel any better, I did laugh when I saw it, just as I died a little on the inside for being able to read it so easily.


Yeah, I'm not proud of myself for being able to write that way.

I blame the parents.


----------



## jaysen (Jul 7, 2011)

I didn't mind, and I thought it was funny. I'm a bit surprised that anyone said anything. This is the internet. Now, I've got a picture of robot pirates talking like geeks in my brain. A brain that they'd like to eat.


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

Did someone say robot pirates?

I'm certain I heard robot pirates.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

This had the makings of a fun thread and ggggrammer aah-NAZII decided to jump out.

Didn't realise taking the piss was no longer allowed.

Shame about that. Hope you fella's are proud.


----------



## Lucio (Aug 10, 2009)

Navy would just be another line of defense, stick them on the coast and they can use those missiles/lasers/plasma/whatever to hit whatever comes flying in. Floating mobile fortresses. Aren't naval forces renowned for being more heavily armored than land based versions like tanks? Besides, looking at RL for a moment, wasn't it a naval vessel that shot down that satellite a few years back? When you run out of land, make your silos float, or submerge. I'd say if the resources are available you put all your ducks anywhere they need to be and double or triple the defensive lines.

Also, I kinda resent the idea that the navy is no longer important. If we get into any sort of sword rattling with China of the territorial water dispute the navy is going to be the one on the front line. Which brings another point to the discussion: carriers. If we're going for orbital bombardment of strategic points it'll be a bit more difficult to pin down a sub capable of launching aircraft and spacecraft than it will be to find an airport won't it?


----------



## Overbeing (Oct 9, 2011)

Answer to the original question is easy, why sail on water when you could fly over it? :biggrin:


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

Lucio said:


> If we're going for orbital bombardment of strategic points it'll be a bit more difficult to pin down a sub capable of launching aircraft and spacecraft than it will be to find an airport won't it?


But if you aim to take the world you have to specifically target that airport, whereas you can basically just fill the sea full of hot missle realted doom. Collateral damage is not a major concern in targeting ships out at sea.

Navies are definetely still important in 40k, but only in a couple of scenarios. Firstly, on worlds which are primarily or exclusively water; a situation which has been addressed in a couple of BL books (mentioned previously). Secondly, in any sort of civil/planetary war. This would be much like numerous wars on Earth, where teh reasources of the navy prove very valuable, in which case these would be planetary navies not Imperial ones. However once the Imperial Navy (the space-faring type) gets involved in a fight a conventional navy has very little to offer. Troops can be dropped to any location on world with little hassel, making carriers unnecessary. Orbital bombardments can be brought to bear on any location, making the extra firepower unnecessary and also more or less elimiating any additional protection offered by being mobile.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Best use of Sea Navies - Orbital Defences.

Today we have Cruise Missiles and those Missiles Loaded with Nuclear Warheads.

Imagine if on Cadia, the Imperial Forces lost control of their Orbital Defences to the Chaos Warbands. The Chaos Ships begin to move in, only to be blown out of the skies and have their ships destroyed in low orbit while their shields are down by Anti-ship torpedoes, carried by a Submarine-esque vessel.

Also consider the strength of the platform required for the land based weaponry. There is no moveable way in the current world in which we are capable of making any mobile naval cannon. Todays 4.5" guns on the ships are devastating, but due to the advent of the missile, they've become fairly outdated, so there's no need for the 3 turrets of 3 18" diameter cannons anymore.

But as 40K doesn't maintain those rules, how would you consider a platform capable of firing off 9-12 Quake Cannon shots every turn? Or even an Imperial Navy weapon, like a Macro Cannon (not a Nova Cannon, though. That's a bit too big). Those weapons that are normally singly mounted on Titans or Ordinatus class vehicles. Who would mess with a Ship that has enough Manticore AA Missiles to scare off a Fighter Wing, a dozen Quake Cannons, each capable of levelling a city block - and capable of holding an entire regiment within its hull, along with Landing Craft/Aviation Transport capable of dropping it into battle?

What about a ship that's designed to launch Spec Ops raids under the cover of it's guns? A Squadron of Storm Troopers, around 60-100 Men, all in Valkyrie/Vendetta's, supported by Sentinels, Tauros and Tauros Venators in Sky Talons, under the support of Vulture Gunships?


----------



## Harriticus (Nov 10, 2010)

There's really no reason other then GW not wanting to give everyone naval units as to why there's no naval craft in 40k. For ocean worlds and the like it's much more efficient to operate coastal patrol craft that can stay in an area far longer and more efficiently then a Valkyrie or whatever. 

And the above post makes a good point about massive submarines being used for orbital defenses. Something I would expect CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to come up with.


----------

