# Death Korps, Pointless?



## dragonkingofthestars (May 3, 2010)

why the heck would the Imperium use siege armys? after world war 1 3 invention made trench warfare impossable, first: the tank and we know the Imperium has oodles of tanks, second: improments air craft percisely speaking bombers and the Imperium has good Bommbers too, Third: improvments to artilary leathlity and improved artilary tatics, both the Imperium has. 

in the Cold war Thermobaric weapons were invented, which are to quto Wikipedia , "thermobaric weapon, which includes the type known as a "fuel-air bomb", is an explosive weapon that produces a blast wave of a significantly longer duration than those produced by condensed explosives." the side effect of the fire ball is a massive vaccum created by the the fire bal sucking in all the air, you sufficate and in extream case can have the lungs ripped out of you, :shok:uke: this works well on people dug into tunnels or caves, or bunkers. and lests not forget bunker buster bombs which can rip though 20 feet of croncrete or world war 2 earth quake bombs which upon impact with earth dig in, the expode makeing a earth quake that dose the damage. and if it can destroy a rail road tunnel by going 60 feet *though* the hill it will destroy a trench.

whith these advancemts why the heck do you need seige regimentes? heck with as many armor and mecinized reiments as seige regiments were deploy I could have ended the war for Vraks (imperal armor 5,6,7) in 3 years.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Not quite sure what you're specifically getting at. I assume you mean besieging a city or territory?

Having not read the book in particular, could you fill in some details why the Death Korp was less than efficient?


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

There is still siege warfare in 40K for the same reasons SM have rapid firing high velocity grenade launchers, laser cannons that can cut a tank in half and plasma guns that burn hotter than the sun... and swords!
It's a style of play that appeals to players, simple as that.

On a side note, please run a spell check! 
It will make your posts easier to read and easier for others to understand. None of us are perfect, that's why spell check is there.


----------



## Kale Hellas (Aug 26, 2009)

because wars of atrition are fun for some people.
i think its because some people just enjoy seiges the ability to starve an entire city while leveling buildings.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

also the point about fuel air bombs, don't really work so much now, for the reason that the death corps wear fully enclosed respirators so sucking out the air from their lungs wouldn't work, same goes for space marines. 
Also you have to consider that when offensive tech improves so does the defensive tech.
And really would you want to run at a 1000m meter high wall in the open, you'd be ripped to shreds, so when laying siege to fortress using a trench system is the best way to approach a wall for siege purposes.
so there is a lot of point to them plus its COOL! :laugh:


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Not to mention, some fortresses that have been by the 41st millenium are nigh unto impregnable (Hydra Cordatus comes to mind). For some of these campaigns against these 'super fortresses,' a long-term siege is the only method to really tear it down, completely through attrition.

Not to mention the Death Korps models just look so damn _cool._


----------



## kharn-the-betrayer (Jul 16, 2010)

It's just a game, it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to look cool


----------



## Tensiu (Aug 15, 2009)

kharn-the-betrayer said:


> It's just a game, it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to look cool


TRUE! We're talking about world where you can kill someone with adamantium (thicker than steel!) armour with mere sword, and there huge bugs can tear tanks apart, and where superhuman knights often fight without helmets, leaving their most vunerable body part uncovered.

Less sense, moar fun.


----------



## Turkeyspit (Jun 11, 2010)

dragonkingofthestars said:


> why the heck would the Imperium use siege armys? after world war 1 3 invention made trench warfare impossable, first: the tank and we know the Imperium has oodles of tanks, second: improments air craft percisely speaking bombers and the Imperium has good Bommbers too, Third: improvments to artilary leathlity and improved artilary tatics, both the Imperium has.


Ah..but with the invention of the Tank, came the Anti-Tank Mine, and the Anti-Tank Weapon. With the invention of the Bomber came Anti-Aircraft Technology. Trenches are, by their design, able to counter the effects of conventional HE artillery.

So if a squad of Tanks were to push forward to break through a line of trenches, they would be easy targets for melta-gunners/rocket launcher crews in the trenches, to say nothing of mines or remote-detonated explosives. Keep in mind, Anti-Tank weapons in M41 are far superior to what we have these days. This is why armor cannot advance without an infantry screen.

Trench Warfare is also an ideology more than a technical requirement. Modern day armies are built around mobility and specialization. Squads are often far smaller than they were 100 years ago, and they have far greater support at their disposable. 

Leaders today are not willing to send their soldiers to a 'meat grinder'. Obviously in W40K, such hesitations are conspicuously absent k:


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Turkeyspit said:


> Ah..but with the invention of the Tank, came the Anti-Tank Mine, and the Anti-Tank Weapon. With the invention of the Bomber came Anti-Aircraft Technology. Trenches are, by their design, able to counter the effects of conventional HE artillery.


Well... HE PD and delay... not so much with TI and VT


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

At least in the heresy novels like _A Thousand Son_ the anti aircraft weapons were too many and to powerful to do an assault of Prospero so they relied on infantry. 

Its like today. Many people just don't get the fact that mobile infantry will still and always be the biggest part of the military. Firstly, aircraft can only stay in the air so long, and secondly the amount of expenses and resources to get those things in the air makes it a limited source in military warfare.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

LIKE DUDE TOTALLY we have Stealth fighters and Laser Weapons today. What do we even need the army for?

It's a way of fighting. A couple of mates of mine are in Norway now, but the war is in the Stan. Why? Because it could be needed.

As to Fuel Air Bombs - sucking the air out of the lungs obviously won't cause inhalation burns destroying the person from the inside out, but I'm willing to bet a half tonne of a Fuel Air Bomb has a) enough air, b) enough air, and c) enough spark to burn an area roughly the size of Wembley's turf.

On the other hand - look at the Insurgents in Afghanistan - they've taking down SO pilots in MH6s and MH60L DAP's with weaponry 40 years out of date. 

On the other hand, are you Nick Clegg?


----------



## Turkeyspit (Jun 11, 2010)

Boc said:


> Well... *HE PD* and delay... not so much with *TI *and *VT*


I'm sorry, my abbreviation cogitators are struggling under a choloric machine spirit - where is that damn Tech-Priest?! :scratchhead:


----------



## Anfo (Jul 17, 2009)

Vaz said:


> LIKE DUDE TOTALLY we have Stealth fighters and Laser Weapons today. What do we even need the army for?


Nothing against you, but you brought up a good point. We have a whole bunch of super technology, that we know about. Who knows what is top secret right now and we have no idea what it is/does.

But we will _always_ need grunts. It doesn't matter how much you bomb, nuke and rape a country. You need guys to run in and stick a flag in the ground and say "This is ours now." Then stay there to ensure no one else come in and tries to take your new territory over.


----------



## dragonkingofthestars (May 3, 2010)

Vaz said:


> On the other hand, are you Nick Clegg?


no, who or what is Nick Clegg?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Fuck me I thought sarcasm tags weren't necessary.

@ dragonkingofthestars, Brits say the exact same thing.


----------



## Tensiu (Aug 15, 2009)

Anfo said:


> But we will _always_ need grunts. It doesn't matter how much you bomb, nuke and rape a country. You need guys to run in and stick a flag in the ground and say "This is ours now." Then stay there to ensure no one else come in and tries to take your new territory over.


That's fuckin'n well said.

Besides, without footmen, there'd be no ppl like Jack Churchill!


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

> I'm sorry, my abbreviation cogitators are struggling under a choloric machine spirit - where is that damn Tech-Priest?!


TI = timed fuses that are set to 'theoretically' detonate 20m above the target. Problem is they have to be set manually and are therefore prone to error.

VT = variable time fuses that are set to detonate 7m above the target, which, for 105mm and 155mm artillery rounds, provides for the greatest kill-radius, and also peppers steel rain down on any unfortunate troops hiding in a trench.



> Nothing against you, but you brought up a good point. We have a whole bunch of super technology, that we know about. Who knows what is top secret right now and we have no idea what it is/does.
> 
> But we will always need grunts.


This is quite true, HOWEVER just because we have all this high-speed shit doesn't mean anyone actually uses it. It costs incredible amounts of money to mass-produce anything, and since military contracts are sold to the lowest bidder, much of it is absolute shit and requires constant maintenance, therefore resulting in even more money lost. Not to mention, soldiers/airmen/whoever have a very bad habit of breaking anything and everything they can get their hands on. So despite the fact that we've got all sorts of incredibly advanced systems, rarely are they deployed with any real effect.

As far as the second part of your statement, I entirely agree. Air power and naval power only go so far. Once you bomb an army into oblivion, soldiers on the ground have to move in and claim the territory, establishing the theoretical line of 'we control this.' At least in conventional warfare, where there is a _fairly_ solid delineation between friendly and hostile troops.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Vaz said:


> LIKE DUDE TOTALLY we have Stealth fighters and Laser Weapons today. What do we even need the army for?


I'll assume sarcasm based on:
1:you mean like the stealth fighters america is addicted to that british radar can pick up :biggrin:
2:and the GIANT lasers mounted in 747's that in *simulations* can shoot missiles from the sky.....and nothing much else.

I don't really see DK as having no place, siege warfare is still around in modern day armies, you just have to look.

for instance just look at the forces in iraq, when we take important ground we build base camps that look like small forts that provide artillery support and a defensive position, just like castles back in medieval sieges.

troops still dig into mountain sides and construct trenches just like WWI and long before.

breaking a siege with ships or aircraft is not always possible or viable, usually when you fight a siege you want to capture the ground so you can make use of it afterwards or limit collateral damage, the Navy today and in the future cannot always do this, or are simply not capable, just look at Iwo Jima as the perfect example of a modern siege where air and fleet firepower was utterly and completely useless and still required men on the ground to get the job finished.

War never changes and never will change, even when troops are running around with powered armour suits and laser rifles and hover tanks, men will still dig trenches and build there little castles, no matter how they may of evolved.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> I'll assume sarcasm based on:
> 1:you mean like the stealth fighters america is addicted to that british radar can pick up :biggrin:
> 2:and the GIANT lasers mounted in 747's that in *simulations* can shoot missiles from the sky.....and nothing much else.


#1: stealth fighters aren’t suppose to completely avoid radar, simply make it so conventional radar can not detect and track effectively. 
#2: In theory, it can be used against aircraft and low flying sats.

P.S. The fact you brits may be able to detect the fighters is irrelevant since we would never fight you..... and if we did we wouldn't need stealth fighters to kick the living shit out of your airforce.:wink: (Kidding)

But anyway, siege is still useful.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

gen.ahab said:


> #1: stealth fighters aren’t suppose to completely avoid radar, simply make it so conventional radar can not detect and track effectively.
> #2: In theory, it can be used against aircraft and low flying sats.
> 
> P.S. The fact you brits may be able to detect the fighters is irrelevant since we would never fight you..... and if we did we wouldn't need stealth fighters to kick the living shit out of your airforce.:wink: (Kidding)
> ...



Lol, even if I am from Finland, I just have to say that the Brits are far better than the Americans! At least if I can believe what I have heard, the brits have far better training, and more specialised troops... And they are also cooler in every other aspect... :laugh:


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Depends upon the branches. US marines VS Royal marines? About even, although the brits have some fucking great snipers. General army troops? Brits have harder training but we have numbers and tech. Cav? US have better tactics and more experience but the brits have a better tank. Special operations? No real way to gauge it. Air force? We would kick their ass.

The Top 10 Military Powers of the World
Unites States of America 
China 
Russia 
India 
United Kingdom 
France 
Germany 
Brazil 
Japan 
Turkey


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

sorry but i have to disagree that the U.S has more experience then the british army, the british army is alot older it has been around for 100s of years , in various forms, and also sorry to but i disagree with you on the count of U.S marines been equal to Royal Marines, Royal Marines are far better, altho i agree on numbers and tech and that we have the better tank. 

anyway siege warfare will always be around in some form or other, no matter how advanced we get.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Of course you do, your a Brit. And our cav does have more experience. Our marines and your marines are about the same. You may have more training, not including recon, but we have more numbers and better tech. If I were to put your marines against ours I would bet on my boys, and not just because we would outnumber you 10-1, but because we have tanks, choppers, artil, ect. Although the Israelis would kick both our asses.

Anyway, this would be a fun off topic question.

Well I really should say force recon is the same. Marines, standard marines, arn't.


----------



## Tuck3r (Apr 9, 2010)

Its not that we're better at any one particular thing the best thing about the US military is the cooperation between the branches the hi-precision radar designation by the Army paints a mighty fine target for our Air force or Navy to bombard into dust and what not.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

yanlou said:


> sorry but i have to disagree that the U.S has more experience then the british army, the british army is alot older it has been around for 100s of years , in various forms, and also sorry to but i disagree with you on the count of U.S marines been equal to Royal Marines, Royal Marines are far better, altho i agree on numbers and tech and that we have the better tank.
> 
> anyway siege warfare will always be around in some form or other, no matter how advanced we get.


Didnt America beat the British (who at the time was the worlds best) army for Independence? Didnt America come into WW2 and fought back both the Nazis and Japs? Royal Marines or the Marines. Any Jarhead will say them ofcourse, some of those guys try to keep body parts for good memeories. Crazy ^#%s.

Anywho Airforce and Naval power we beat Britian, or any Europe country. The F-22 or the Euro Jet. Dead Even, but we have more F-22s. We also have more Carriers that carry these craft, or the just as Awsome F-18 Super Hornets. So the Marines will have very few Royal Marines to deal with as a result of Naval/Air Power. 

Time to build those trences boys.... oh my gosh, this is why we have SIEGES


----------



## Tuck3r (Apr 9, 2010)

No the F/A-18 are now where near as awesome as the F-22's. not even closeish. the reason that the F/A-18's are so popular is that they unlike the 22's are carrier ready. however we are currently getting ready to fix that problem with the F-35.
And the reason that he F-22 beats the brittish jet... i think they're flyin SU-37's is because it has only a little bit less distance an almost equal payload and at least equal manuverability at 1/3 the cost and 1/2 the metal and rescourses required to build it


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Tuck3r said:


> No the F/A-18 are now where near as awesome as the F-22's. not even closeish. the reason that the F/A-18's are so popular is that they unlike the 22's are carrier ready. however we are currently getting ready to fix that problem with the F-35.
> And the reason that he F-22 beats the brittish jet... i think they're flyin SU-37's is because it has only a little bit less distance an almost equal payload and at least equal manuverability at 1/3 the cost and 1/2 the metal and rescourses required to build it


No Britain doesn't use SU-37's, we use the Eurofighter Typhoon.

I would just like to point out it wasn't the US or UK who dealt the serious blow to Germany in WWII (well we gave them a bloody nose in the Battle of Britain, with the help of the Poles of course), it was the Soviet Union who really crushed Hitler's forces.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Well that is debatable. It could be said that without the US the UK would have been crushed and the Germans would have been able to throw everything at the USSR... Although they probably would have lost anyway.

Anyway, all 3 nations were = important to the war effort.

And the typhoon isn't even as good as the f-15.


----------



## WarMaster Sindr (Jun 23, 2010)

And this is siege warfare for the the guy who started this fourm i would like to make a suggestion read Iron Warriors great book and it helps understand why their is still siege warfare okay great.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

yanlou said:


> sorry but i have to disagree that the U.S has more experience then the british army, the british army is alot older it has been around for 100s of years , in various forms, and also sorry to but i disagree with you on the count of U.S marines been equal to Royal Marines, Royal Marines are far better, altho i agree on numbers and tech and that we have the better tank.
> 
> anyway siege warfare will always be around in some form or other, no matter how advanced we get.


ouch, insult me why don't yah!:threaten:

Its all about the M16 A4. Oorah Marine Corp!


----------



## Davidicus 40k (Jun 4, 2010)

yanlou said:


> ...altho i agree on numbers and tech and that we have the better tank.


Wait... you're from the UK apparently, are you saying you have numbers and tech and the better tank? Or the US does?

Because that'd be silly. In my opinion, Israelis have the best military tech. We have tons of expensive stuff that we hardly deploy; they develop stuff to use every day.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Davidicus 40k said:


> Wait... you're from the UK apparently, are you saying you have numbers and tech and the better tank? Or the US does?
> 
> Because that'd be silly. In my opinion, Israelis have the best military tech. We have tons of expensive stuff that we hardly deploy; they develop stuff to use every day.


The US has better numbers and tech and the brits have a better tank. Israelis basically use crap we sold them. The US has the best tech.


----------



## Sarge1447 (May 11, 2010)

All of you are wrong. The UN would win the fight. They'd simply use harsh rhetoric until both the UK and US feel bad and surrender  And if that didn't work, economic sanctions!


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

All of you are wrong, this is about the practicality of siege warfare in the 41st millenium, not 'who would win in a fight out of two countries that wouldn't fight against one another in this era anyways.' Now, back to siege warfare which, I completely agree, is best seen through reading _Storm of Iron_ or, to a lesser extent, _Rynn's World._


----------



## dragonkingofthestars (May 3, 2010)

I recomend starting a new thread off topic section on best miltary,, heck i start it if you wish.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

wow, really turned into a massive mess of incorrect information and patrotic penis wiggling.

but siege warfare hey, that would be an interesting topic to see someone talk about, maybe involving the DK of...............oh hang on a minute


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

Heh, patriotic penis wiggling! Awesome term man! haha

I have nothing to add to the seige debate as all points have been covered, and tank wise German Leopard > UK and US tanks imo.

Just spat coke all over my desk lolling at the term PPW... man! :-D


----------



## Turkeyspit (Jun 11, 2010)

Baron Spikey said:


> No Britain doesn't use SU-37's, we use the Eurofighter Typhoon.
> 
> I would just like to point out it wasn't the US or UK who dealt the serious blow to Germany in WWII (well we gave them a bloody nose in the Battle of Britain, with the help of the Poles of course), it was the Soviet Union who really crushed Hitler's forces.


Sorry to disagree with you Spikey, but being a history major, I can confidently state that it was Hitler 'who really crushed Hitler's forces'. :victory:


----------



## Belthazor Aurellius (Jan 16, 2009)

Turkeyspit, good point on who really crushed Hitler's army. A megalomaniac, weilding the army Hitler had, and making the foolish choice to fight the war on two fronts was exactly what caused Hitler to lose the war.

As to why siege warfare still exists, may I add a quote?



Stella Cadente said:


> War never changes...


I like the line partly 'cause I played Fallout 3 and loved it, but also because it's true. War will not change, just evolve. Siege tactics in the 41st millenium are possible because of things like anti-air, anti-tank and anti-infantry, sure. But, let's not forget anti-orbital, anti-torpedo and anti-nuke technology, shall we?

In Storm of Iron, it is made clear how a siege could still be possible. Void Shields.

Void shields become the critical assault-stopper, forcing siege to begin where orbital bombardment, drop pods and bombers would have been deployed otherwise. Void shields allegedly can survive anything, if they have enough power and enough generators.

Of course, even if a city isn't void-shielded, if it is valuable enough, the invading commanders won't want to just level the place. Hellsreach on Armageddon is a good example of this. The Armageddon Steel Legion, Black Templars and other forces fought a hard battle against the Orks to keep the hive city. Orks wanted Hellsreach for looting purposes, and were more interested in fighting the inhabitants than simply destroying the hive. Imperial defenders were protecting Imperial Citizenry and government property, but more importantly, they were holding off the Orks, who, if able to take Hellsreach, would have had a stronger foothold in the region to launch assaults on other nearby hives.

The Death Corp of Kreig are not obsolete in the 41st millenium, because, aside from the reasons listed above, they also come from a world whose primary tactic for centuries was "nuke the other guy"... If their siege tactics could survive the war on their world, the Imperium can definitely use them.

That and it's also a game. It's a game where some people want to play siege tactics without playing WHFB. It's a game where it's fun to play battles to destroy a shield generator, or a city gate, or bypass a trench system. So, even with some decent rhetoric to back up the use of siege tactics, we don't even need it. Because it's supposed to be fun to lob artillery over a trench, and see who you hit. (Also, simply because the technology is so backwards, it's a more reliable tactic to duck into a trench, unless you're being hit by whirlwind cover-ignoring incendiary missiles...)


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

It comes down to how many good pieces of technology that can be used without destroying the objective. And the thing is... there is no answer. 

Lets just use all the predator drone missles. Answer solved! Wrong. We have limited amount of money. The country (United States) that is the only one that "really" uses it is in debt out of their eyeballs as we know it.

Nukes! Just use a Nuke! Well good job! Not only did you win the battle, but you also destroyed the objective as its full of radiation and now no one can live or go through their without getting killed from it.

So in terms of siege warfare, especially in an age were human body count doesn't really mean anything as the population is really huge, and avoiding any more expensive or too destructive means, using bodies are a good, cheap, and effective way of getting military objectives.


----------



## forkmaster (Jan 2, 2010)

Then we have to take it to account not every planet has resources or technology to be that super kick ass advanced where siege warfare can still be used.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

At ck,
neutron bomb. Destroys all organic matter without destroying the structures and no left over rads.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Or just biological weapons... always fun


----------



## dragonkingofthestars (May 3, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> At ck,
> neutron bomb. Destroys all organic matter without destroying the structures and no left over rads.


Neutron bombs, or to be more to Accurate enhanced radation device (ERD) still have a one to 3 megaton blast. so you still destroy the objective. and the range is so long that you might fry your own troops.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Boc said:


> Or just biological weapons... always fun


bio weapons are unreliable and do not discriminate, if you want to keep someone alive in the middle of that siege, that ain't gonna happen, and if the troops are in sealed walls and bunkers and tanks and transports, there not affected, and if the wind changes, your utterly screwed if it blows towards you.

if you want an effective 1 hit weapon, EMP, any weapon system not shielded and with a single electrical component suddenly becomes as useless as a pile of dog turd, and any unshielded intelligence gathering device means your blind to the attacking force, the defences are left up when you do take over, and anything automated thats destroyed can be replaced.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

dragonkingofthestars said:


> Neutron bombs, or to be more to Accurate enhanced radation device (ERD) still have a one to 3 megaton blast. so you still destroy the objective. and the range is so long that you might fry your own troops.


Yeah but you can drop it outside of the city and most of the people inside should it?


----------



## Belthazor Aurellius (Jan 16, 2009)

Neutron bombs could be blown in atmosphere. Lower than orbit, higher than the heat radius of the blast, city gets wind and radiation and naught else, your troops can hide in lead-lined battlecruisers in space while they wait.

EMP only works on unshielded tech, and it assumes your enemy isn't orky, tyranidic, daemonic or necron. Necrons are EMP shielded. Or rather, they don't operate on normal circuitry systems, and are partly immune to EMP. I think.


----------



## dragonkingofthestars (May 3, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> Yeah but you can drop it outside of the city and most of the people inside should it?


how far out? if its to close you damage the city, to far and you woun't kill them or at lest get a instent kill, radation can caouse a walk dead phase you going to die just in a week. the reason is that the cells we have (intestnal lineing, white blood cells.) are still there but no new ones are going to be made as they been nucked, (microwave pun) you have until thouse cells die of natual reasons, which would normal be replaced but arn't going to, before you die. and if you know your going to die why not fight back even harder? like a rat backed into a courner they will fight, even the civilans cuse there die anyway.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Trust me, I'm well aware of the ill effects of bio weapons and their impracticality. Unfortunately, dry humour doesn't translate to text very effectively.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Wait.. Nbombs have a yield as small as 1kt which would destroy everything within 140 yards and inflict insta-death on all models within .5 miles.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

In terms of the siegest, I think its been a bit clearer.

Someone said that the book _Storm of Iron_ should be read to get a better explanation as to siege tactics. Now that I think about it, I would say that there is actually some good evidence that suggests blowing up a fort is not the most effective way. Of course, put this in 40k world perspective. There was a warp identity actually protecting Honsou's fort from being obliterated by constant bombardment. The invention of black powder in our world's history has not destroyed siege and warfare, however it has made creations like heavily fortified castles and fortresses useless as it actually takes too much to create only to be reduced to rubble by the enemy.

If Honsou had something that strong to fight off two full Iron Warrior companies, I would imagine the Imperium would generally have something maybe not as powerful... but somewhere in the lines of natural energy, or warp energy to defend themselves from being sieged to an oblivian.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Errr..Isn't that what void shields do?


----------



## WarMaster Sindr (Jun 23, 2010)

Dude siege armys read Iron Warriors book. And think Chaos Space Marine being well over 5000 most not all their are younger but they have learned to fortify their areas and are professionals and can hold of most attacks so if they fortify a city to be almost impossible to attack normaly would you charge into their line of fire or build tranchs so you have cover?


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

When Honsou was fighting the two sieging IW companies, he had a Mountain as his fortress, and also had the Blood Thirster powering against the more potent Warp/Psy attacks. His fortress was leveled in the end regardless by the week long barrages, however small raids against the more powerful weapons bought time. The Landslide killing a huge portian of enemy in at the base made a dierect assault near impossible. Then he outsmarted the one Warsmith when he tried to sneak attack from the bottom up. 

It was a solid example how 40K siege warfare works for IWs. 1) Couldnt wipe out the enemy with a single powerful attack. 2) Couldnt waltz up for direct assaults. 3) Artillery was being destroyed leaving bombardment option not a factor.


----------



## Belthazor Aurellius (Jan 16, 2009)

Dragon King: Sure, a radiated populace will fight back harder, if you invade. But, if you're going to N-bomb them, you might as well hold your troops in orbit or a few thousand miles away until that week of dying has passed...


----------



## manyfist (Aug 14, 2010)

From my knowledge is that with technology advancement the way it is in 40k (aka sporadic) and the numbers you're throwing out in one battle (huge), and battling enemies that are equally as numerous sometimes it's useful to use old tactics. These old tactics could be trench warfare, which is great for facing enemies such as Orks or Chaos which come after you in swarms. Lower in the ground means less chance of getting hit while providing buffers for the horde to crash into, slowing them down. 

Modern Combat isn't done by the Imperial Guard, this is job for Space Marines or Storm Troopers. With War never ending, and countless wars on countless worlds you're bound to have multiple types of warfare going on.


----------

