# Space marine spec,



## warsmith7752 (Sep 12, 2009)

Had the whole "if space marines invaded earth" discussion at lunch today, we couldn't agree on how much a space marine could deal/take.

What exactly does the bolt round consist of? How much radiation/heat can power armour take and can anyone list all of the things a marine can do above the norm.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

If Space Marines invaded Earth, it would be all over for us.

To answer your question, a boltgun is, in essence (to use familiar munitions), an automatic rifle that shoots rocket-propelled grenades capable of breaching our modern tanks for ammunition.

A Space Marine is superhumanly strong, fast, and durable. His stamina allows him to operate for great periods of time with minimal resources. His power armour would shield him from largely any small arms we have available. Explosives on the scale of bombs or missiles carried by aircraft, or shells fired by main battle tanks and attack helicopters would be needed to breach their power armour. Radiation would likely be countered for prolonged periods of time by environmental seals.


----------



## warsmith7752 (Sep 12, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> If Space Marines invaded Earth, it would be all over for us.


We knew that, we were discussing how many we would take with us and where would be first to fall and things like that.

Just how fast is super strong and fast? Are we speaking usain bolt? Or the flash?


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

There's a lot of contradicting evidence. It really depends on where you're getting your info, when, and who's writing it.

Look at Imperial Armor volume two: It says that the Predator's armor is equivalent of 200mm of conventional steel. To give you a ball park figure, the Abrams have 940-960mm equivalent thickness against kinetic penetrators and a staggering 1320-1620mm worth of equivalent steel armor against HEAT rounds.

Even the allmighty Landraider only has 300m equivalent armor. That'd put the Abrams as at least 3 times more protected, sometimes as high as 5, than a Landraider.

So again, it depends all on your sources.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Yah 40k fan boyism aside going on the weaker side of 40k nonsence we actually fair decently for having no energy weapons, Ahbrams would be roughly AV13-14, and would ignore anything below a missle launcher. Also idiotic suedo science aside one would gauess do to the giant ass armor joints, and the fact that after a certain vilocity humn flesh is reduced to much by kinetic energy, stuff like anti material rifles, and high explosives would gank marines left, and right. Also we have nucular weapons capable of killing conteinents.

So yah idiocy aside we would only lose do to them having endless supplies of troops, and giant ass space carriers, that and the ability to land forces any where on the globe in hours. However in a ground war any industrialized nation could kill marines, they may need to use fual air bombs to do so, but we would figure that out in about 24 hours (The davantage of not being a bunch of idiots that fear light bulbs).

In other words we would win because we are acutally human beings, and not a imppossible space empire made up of superstitios nut jobs. Last time I checked things that can exist always been impossible fiction construct. If 40k made rational sence then maybe they would win, but it would be impossible to tell going on the current nonesence.

PS I will spell check this when I get home.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Heilene,

When it comes to things like that, I always assume there's some way that metals, alloys, etc., have been developed better in the future.

Remember the first "Gaunt's Ghosts" novel? The antagonist goes on a rant about an STC that was found that produced "a type of steel blade, an alloy of folded steel composite that was sharper and lighter and tougher than anything [they have] had before."

To the OP:
It all comes down to opinion. Different folks have different opinions as to what Astartes are physically capable of. For myself, I consider them to be superhuman outside of their power armour--superhuman in the sense that they are capable of things that an unaugmented human is capable of. So, they can lift more than an unaugmented person. They run faster and longer. They can take more damage and recover from it, and they can inflict more damage with their bare hands than a normal human could. In "Purging of Kadillus", a Dark Angel is attended by an Apothecary after his shoulder is separated and his secondary heart is stabbed. He gets up after cursory treatment and gets back into the fight. Astartes have been shown losing limbs and continuing. They punch through rock walls, etc.

How long would it take for them to take over our earth? I don't know. In terms of effectively conquering the world (e.g., all put the most sporadic opposition quashed)? Days?

LukeValentine,

Your argument presumes that there are no effective advancements in terms of armor quality and weapon penetration in over thirty eight millennia. This would be highly unlikely considering that, in a mere handful of centuries since firearms were introduced, we have introduced armor capable of stopping most forms of small arms.

As for fuel air bombs, etc... Warfare is about attaining the superiority needed to level those effects on your enemy needed for victory. Today, the most prevalent such superiority is aerial superiority/power, which provides a nation with the firepower, mobility, and maneuver needed to defeat an enemy (along with a healthy application of combined arms). A single entity being able to command orbit, maneuver from orbit, and project firepower from said orbit would be devastating.

In fewer words, you'd be lucky if there were air bases still operating, from which aircraft armed with fuel-air bombs (of which there is only a finite number), by the time the Astartes decided it was time to come down with Thunderhawks and Drop Pods.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

Abrahms would be about AV 13-14, and ignoring missles seems possible because of the explosives on the outside. Also possibly ignore any other kind of solid-shot projectile? (i.e. Railgun, Autocannon, etc.)

Then we have our Air Force. Yes Space marines are good but put them up to a Raptor or Eagle with Tiger missles and womp.

Navy would play a big part, too. Even in WW2 we had 15 in cannons on some battleships, and now I think we go up to like 12 on Destroyers.

In short, we would probably wreck them on land, the only problem for us would be their Orbital Bombardments and Navy.


----------



## Engindeer (Dec 1, 2010)

I doubt the Marines would be foolish enough to go head on with us. First they would try to convert us, then subjugate us, and if we put up too much resistance, eliminate us!

And we would never fire missiles, where they would most certainly strike: urban areas


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

> And we would never fire missiles, where they would most certainly strike: urban areas


Evacuations. 

Then we can do whatever-the-fuck we want!


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Cyleune said:


> Abrahms would be about AV 13-14, and ignoring missles seems possible because of the explosives on the outside. Also possibly ignore any other kind of solid-shot projectile? (i.e. Railgun, Autocannon, etc.)


Again, this supposes that there have been no advances in metals/armor in 38,000 years. That's unlikely, given that in just five centuries we overcame the problem of firearms rendering body armor obsolete. As such, I seriously doubt Abrams armor comes close to approaching that of the tanks of the far future.

The one thing that we have an advantage over the tanks of the future is speed. Imperial Armour has most tanks going 40km/h or slower, which is pathetic compared to today's tanks. I shake my head in consternation when I read such stats. I guess it comes down to the fact that, wargamers or not, civilians sometimes miss some things that strike people in the military as obvious.



> Then we have our Air Force. Yes Space marines are good but put them up to a Raptor or Eagle with Tiger missles and womp.


Again, good luck having an Air Force at all, when your opponent is engaging you from low orbit.



> Navy would play a big part, too. Even in WW2 we had 15 in cannons on some battleships, and now I think we go up to like 12 on Destroyers.


The Navy would play the smallest part of all. Moving at snail-like speed compared to orbital ships, the average surface warship would be merely a target.

But even if you don't take this into consideration, the fact of the matter is that modern technology--in terms of tanks, artillery, etc.--just wouldn't compete with what the Astartes would bring. It would be a shoddy far future, indeed, if we were basically using the same-old, same-old as we do today.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

> The one thing that we have an advantage over the tanks of the future is speed. Imperial Armour has most tanks going 40km/h or slower, which is pathetic compared to today's tanks. I shake my head in consternation when I read such stats. I guess it comes down to the fact that, wargamers or not, civilians sometimes miss some things that strike people in the military as obvious.


That is interesting. But it again brings up the point of the Imperium being stupid because even now on the Abrahms it can go full speed and still fire all of it's weapons due to the Gyroscope thingy in it.




> Again, good luck having an Air Force at all, when your opponent is engaging you from low orbit.


But they would not be firing at vehicles flying at almost Mach 1.8 or so, they would be focused on barraging the area they are about to assault. Leaving our Air Force open to fire on the landed Marines.




> The Navy would play the smallest part of all. Moving at snail-like speed compared to orbital ships, the average surface warship would be merely a target.


That's assuming they took out the warships before assualting. Likely, with thier SM attitude they would simply attack without rendering anything unfit. Which means that our fleets that would be nearby would be able to engage the incoming Marines and bombard them as they landed. The range for most of the Navy's weapon systems is at least 20 km, so even if they weren't close enough to privide close fire support, they would still be able to loose a barrage.


It would be a war of numbers. We would have to outnumber them which shouldn't necessarily be that hard as it would probably be a single fleet, plus they are assaulting from orbit, which means that as they land they are isolated and cut off from the fleet in orbit, giving us an oppurtunity to attack.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Lol never fire missiles at our own cities....tell that to most of the nations in WW2.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

> Lol never fire missiles at our own cities....tell that to most of the nations in WW2.


Actually they didn't have missiles for the better part of the war, but they did flatten them with Aerial and Naval bombardments!


----------



## Angelus Censura (Oct 11, 2010)

Here is the make up of a Space Marine, in comparison to a normal human. Apart from their weaponry and armour, there are various implants in a Space Marine that make them super human, and immune to almost anything we could throw at them with todays technology.

1. A secondary heart is in place, allowing a SM to survive in a low oxygen environment, as well as increase blood flow and allow for survival of a damaged primary heart.

2. Ossmodula - secretes hormones that increase bone growth and strength, fusing the ribcage into one plate that would be bulletproof to most if not all of our current ammunitions (from firearms, not tanks and such)

3. Biscopea - allows for extreme muscle growth, and acts as a base for later implants. Basically giving a Marine superhuman strength. This strength combined with the servos in the power armour can allow for a Marine to do the unimaginable, such as rip the top hatch off of a tank (Space Wolf by William King, Chapter 1 I believe)

4. Haemastamen - Allows a Space Marine's blood to carry more oxygen, and helps with the processes conducted by the 2nd and 3rd implants listed above. 

5. Larraman's Organ - Releases Laraman Cells into the blood stream, where upon injury, the wound seals and becomes scar tissue as soon as the cells in the blood touch the air. Basically allows for flesh regeneration, meaning a Space Marine in most cases will not bleed out, unless the injury site is extremely large.

6. Catalepsean Node - An implant to the back of the brain, allows a Space Marine to turn off parts of his brain, essentially resting while still awake. Like normal humans, a Space Marine needs sleep, however, he can easily function at full capacity on 4 hours of sleep a day, and if need be, go 2 weeks without any sleep at all.

7. Preomnor - Acts as a secondary stomach, allowing a Space Marine to injest foods that would otherwise be fatal to a normal humans. It neutralizes toxins, and then passes the available nutriants to the primary stomach. (For an example, see The First Heretic HH novel, in which the Word Bearers are trapped in the warp, eat eachother, rotted flesh, and drink engine oils to keep from starving to death. Or in Flight of the Eisenstein, allowing Garro to drink the poision cocktail given to him by Mortarion)

8. Omophagea - Allows a Space Marine to learn by eating. This one is a tough one to explain, however, it essentially means that by taste alone, a Space Marine can decipher exactly what the thing is, past experiences, etc. (For an example, read The Blood Angels Omnibus. In one of the beginning Chapters, when the Word Bearers are introduced, a Blood Angel is cut, and some distance away, the Dark Apostle smells the blood, and instantly knows it to be a Blood Angel)

9. Multi Lung - Allows for breathing in water or toxic environments, cutting off the primary lungs, and using the secondary lung as a form of toxin dispersant, filtering water or air. (Death Guard being a good example of this, in the Heresy Era, being able to live in Extremely toxic areas) 

10. Occulobe - Allows for extremely enhanced vision, in daylight as well as night

11. Lymans Ear - replaces the normal ear, allowing for concious filtration of background noise, and elimination of motion sickness 

12. Sus-an Membrane - Allows a Space Marine to enter a state of suspended animation upon recieval of a mortal wound. In other words, you can think you have killed a Space Marine, but in reality, the Space Marine can go into almost a self induced coma for hundreds of years, and be rejuvinated later with the correct technology and therapy

13. Melanochrome - Allows a Marine's skin to adapt to varying amounts of sunlight and radiation. Almost like those transition lenses we have for glasses, the skin will darken when in contact with higher levels of sunlight and radiation.

14. Oolitic Kidney - Acts as an emergency flush of toxins from the blood stream

15. Neuroglottis - Allows a Marine to pick out toxins and chemicals/substances in food or drink by taste alone, as well as track down prey by taste (similiar to the Omophagea)

16. Mucranoid - Coats the skin in a layer of protective sweat, alowing a SM to survive in extremely hot or cold environments, as well as the vacuum of space.

17. Betcher's Gland - similiar to the glands in a Snake or poisonous reptile that create a poison within the saliva, a Space Marine's saliva is acidic and corossive, allowing a Marine to physically chrew his way through say, metal bars keeping him in a locked cell (if given enough time to do so) - when up against a human, in close combat, he could literally spit on you, and cause extreme facial burns. 

18. Progenoids - 2 Geneseeds. They absord material from other implants, becoming harvestable in 5-10 years after maturing

19. Black Carapace - Implanted under the skin. Its basically like carapace armour, but under the skin of a Marine. Try shooting the Marine in the chest, with our current fire arms, when his defences include this combined with his sealed Chest cavity. Good luck.


Those are simply the basic implants a Marine acquires. This, mixed with their weaponry, vehicles, artilliary, armour, and enhanced training and skills. The Earth wouldn't stand a chance.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Here is better question how badly would a competent alien race beat humanity? That is way to broad of a question, but seriously 40k military's, are WW1 armies with space age technologies.

Still realistically if a ork axe can kill a marine even a our current shoulder fired rpg's could take out marines (Hurray for shaped charges).

In summation if ork weapons, can kill marines/tanks then our space age weapon sure as hell can. I mean seriously in the invasion of earth they may not even use marines, (Even then a 1000 could be killed in a single air strike). I mean after a certain level of technology actually fighting face to face is a death sentence for any biological enemy. 

I will repeat we have weapons today that can vaporize entire Fu&^%$g cities, and we lack the 40k retardation. So yah marines are expert survivalists, and are super human, but until they can survive being reduced to ash a 100 or so marines really isn't that scary.

This is ignoring the fact that the imperium probably wouldn't even think we are important enough to waste marines on (Really god damn far away, and without any incredibly rare materials or artifacts, with highly heretical views, and a world wide expertly trained digital age army)

I mean their is a reason military experts have abandoned making super body armor or uber soldier, and that's the fact it is a hell lot easier to make weapons to kill such soldiers then make them.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

Well you sorta just closed the argument, killjoy.
Happy?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Cyleune said:


> But they would not be firing at vehicles flying at almost Mach 1.8 or so, they would be focused on barraging the area they are about to assault. Leaving our Air Force open to fire on the landed Marines.


Who says they would be shooting at the moving ships? Why bother doing something like that when you can just destroy bases and refueling stations?

Yeah we have things that can mach 1.8, but they can't stay in the air forever. With no way of refueling, once you run out of gas there go the advantages of the ships.


Its interesting to note how some of the arguments for why we would beat marines take on the assumption that space marines are complete morons. Do you honestly think they would charge in without assessing the best strike-points and what targets or objectives need to be taken out quickly or considered priority? Why would marines target a city for attack when the greatest initial resistance comes from military power?


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Cyleune said:


> That is interesting. But it again brings up the point of the Imperium being stupid because even now on the Abrahms it can go full speed and still fire all of it's weapons due to the Gyroscope thingy in it.


Not true... in "Necropolis", Leman Russ tanks fire on the move. But even if that were the case, the Astartes would own the air space and destroy enemy land formations at their whim.



> But they would not be firing at vehicles flying at almost Mach 1.8 or so, they would be focused on barraging the area they are about to assault. Leaving our Air Force open to fire on the landed Marines.


Yes... they would be barraging air bases and infrastructure _necessary_ for an air force to function. They wouldn't need to land Space Marines prior to this. More often than not, when Astartes do planetary assaults before suppressing all defenses it's due to one of three reasons:

1. They can't suppress all the defenses... which is not the case with 21st century earth.
2. They are in a "race against time" scenario...
3. They are just psychotic enough to put greater emphasis on their martial ethos ("Who cares if we haven't destroyed all their air forces; for the Emperor!!!") over conventional strategy.



> That's assuming they took out the warships before assualting. Likely, with thier SM attitude they would simply attack without rendering anything unfit.


That's merely an assumption on your part. Furthermore, naval assets possess weapons of a strategic nature, not tactical. Try engaging squad-size elements without satellite communications and relays to set up a target. It won't happen.



> It would be a war of numbers.


Numbers don't count for anything when there's an overwhelming technological advantage AND the lack of humanity to prevent unnecessary casualties.

And again, you're operating on the assumption that the Astartes would simply choose to engage mass armies for the fun of it. In fact, Astartes have always focused their efforts against strategic/critical assets, while using their fleets and superior firepower to lay waste to anything that would contest their surgical strikes.

I don't mean to be rude, but it's just a matter of understanding the limitations of our modern warfare. That is, what we can and can't do with even the most powerful of our assets today. Absent satellites, most of our advanced weaponry and communication assets are rendered useless. Absent fuel sources, our mechanized assets are left stranded. Absent bases of operation, our air forces become useless within hours.

A force capable of controlling orbit and destroying the above assets (satellites, logistical bases, air bases) has essentially destroyed our ability to communicate, coordinate, maneuver, and engage with our most prized assets. In essence, it has rendered us unable to respond before land combat is even joined.

Your answer to this seems to be "Well, they would attack without doing all this." But that simply wouldn't be true for the overwhelming majority of Chapters, which adhere to the Codex and thus take into consideration such strategic and tactical concerns. 



LukeValantine said:


> Still realistically if a ork axe can kill a marine even a our current shoulder fired rpg's could take out marines (Hurray for shaped charges).


We know how shaped charges work against today's armor. We don't know how effective they would be against power armour. More than likely, though, I'll grant you that they would do the trick. If they connected, that is. Ever fired an RPG at a superhumanly fast individual? I'd bet the success rate of this in the heat of combat is minimal.

As for orks? Remember, orks are also superhumanly powerful in terms of sheer strength. They succeed, more often than not, by targeting "soft" portions of power armor--which is why you see so many Astartes dying of decapitations or suffering from lost limbs in battles against the greenskins.



> I will repeat we have weapons today that can vaporize entire Fu&^% cities, and we lack the 40k retardation. So yah marines are expert survivalists, and are super human, but until they can survive being reduced to ash a 100 or so marines really isn't that scary.


And hardly any of those weapons can be targeted without satellites, or delivered without aircraft. Satellites and the logistical centers needed to launch aircraft cannot withstand an orbital enemy capable of engaging the surface unimpeded.



> I mean their is a reason military experts have abandoned making super body armor or uber soldier, and that's the fact it is a hell lot easier to make weapons to kill such soldiers then make them.


It's actually quite the opposite.

Advances in armor have been coming by leaps and bounds in the last few years. Body armor for the infantryman is already capable of withstanding fire from almost all small arms out there, as well as shrapnel. Some of the latest designs tested remained effective even after dozens of shots fired, and even after being set atop a grenade (the "heroic suicide" scenario). The newest focus where the dismounted soldier is concerned is on the exoskeleton. We already have functional load-bearing devices that allow soldiers to carry hundreds of pounds of equipment, while moving at faster rates of speed than if they had been unencumbered. How long before the same focus is applies to upper torso/limb capabilities? How long before armor covers the apparatus and weapons strapped to it?

Cheers,
P.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Basically this: we might be able to handle 1 ship and a company, but any greater than that and we are fucked.


----------



## BlackGuard (Sep 10, 2010)

In a stand-up war, the Earth would not simply be overrun in a matter of months or years. We would endure for prehaps a decade or so. This is based on the assumption that the Imperium stumbles across our world, we refuse to join, they send in the Imperial Guard first. Mind you, to them were look primitive with our meagre technology, and the Imperial Guard would engage us on our own terms, on our own world, and would take horrific casualities.

Now is it possible for them to strike ALL of our resources at once? No, they may get a surgical strike here, an air raid there, but overall we have shown, as a race in this modern time, far more competence with hiding our fueling stations and being very secretive about our resources. Also, the Imperium is foolish enough to simply invade without thinking -- the first time at least. 

The first invasion would be resisted but we'd be without a plan from there -- what do we plan to do? Send space shuttles to attack battleships? Hell no. We're stuck and they wil commence orbital bombardment of all major cities and resources centers (oil being our biggest need, the Middle East would be in flames, that being our biggest supply). The Third World would crumble and the Western Nations would be severely crippled by the lack of resources and the rioting since our way of life is disrupting with no chance of repelling this enemy threat. 

The Imperium would bring in more regiments, still not seeing the need for Astartes, and this second confrontation would be even larger. I think ultimately we would even win this war. The Imperial Guard shows a severe lack of skill in regards to tactics and I believe even the weaker nations like Africa and South America show a better understanding of modern tactics than them. Their massed assaults would be massacred, their armored formations would crumble, and their so-called advance aircraft would probably do poorly against our own. I'm thinking a Stealh Fighter (I know they are limited) would do very well against them.

After the second wave, the orbital bombardment would only worsen and they'd be hitting even more remote targets, destroying chunks of our dwindling resources. No doubt some of the weakest nations on earth (Africa, South America, and portions of Asia) would seek a peace and truce with the Imperium. They might have a sensible commander who would privately accept, giving future invasions a secret jump point. 

The third wave would be the charm. The Imperium has spent their nessecary amount of lives to realize that we are smarter than them. They would bring in Legions of the Imperial Guard along with a few companies from a random space marines chapter. More space ships, more aircraft, and more ammunition. The last formations of real resistance would only hold out for another few weeks or months. Those traitors nations would probably be severely fucked up by their new Imperial masters.

At this point it would turn into the world's largest gureilla war. I think here is where we'd do rather well, since we have a great history of such tactics. Tactics that the Imperium has seen, but from my reading time and again fail to be able to truly supress such tactics. The Astartes would do well in crushing most of the gurillea networks -- but they are so many and this is an entire world.

In conclusion, I think we'd do well given our technology state and our sheer will to be hardasses and stubborn, but ultimately we would fall just like every other world the Imperium had conquored. We may send hundreds of thousands to their beloved Corpse Emperor, hell maybe even a few million if they're truly stupid -- but the Astartes would get us.

Trust me, I'm all for believing we'd kick some Imperial Ass, but I'm just not convinced. Now ... an Ork invasion ... thats another story entirely.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

First off, the OP was wondering what happened if space marines invaded Earth, not if the Imperium found Earth as it is now and are taking us into the fold unwillingly.



BlackGuard said:


> In a stand-up war, the Earth would not simply be overrun in a matter of months or years. We would endure for prehaps a decade or so. This is based on the assumption that the Imperium stumbles across our world, we refuse to join, they send in the Imperial Guard first. Mind you, to them were look primitive with our meagre technology, and the Imperial Guard would engage us on our own terms, on our own world, and would take horrific casualities.


How exactly did you come to this assumption, that forces of the Imperium would fight us, would fight anyone, not on their own terms? It strikes as strange, because it is not at all true. 

The Imperium would be fully willing to wipe out an entire nation, and entire continent, as an example to others while we would not. The Imperium would have no trouble slaughtering whole towns or cities that are hiding enemy insurgents, while we would not do this. And the list of things goes on.



BlackGuard said:


> Now is it possible for them to strike ALL of our resources at once? No, they may get a surgical strike here, an air raid there, but overall we have shown, as a race in this modern time, far more competence with hiding our fueling stations and being very secretive about our resources. Also, the Imperium is foolish enough to simply invade without thinking -- the first time at least.


If space marines attacked, then likely no; but in the end they wouldn't have to. End of the day, even if they have a single cruiser we simply cannot touch them. They can rain death down upon any location they choose and nothing can be done about it, simply due to the fact that they have orbital superiority.

Now if it was the Imperium overall, than the answer may very well be yes. They don't just commit a single regiment of Imperial Guard, a dozen maybe even two dozen might be sent. Thats easily two to four thousand per regiment (fifteen hundred to three thousand in the case of some armoured companies.) 



BlackGuard said:


> The first invasion would be resisted but we'd be without a plan from there -- what do we plan to do? Send space shuttles to attack battleships? Hell no. We're stuck and they wil commence orbital bombardment of all major cities and resources centers (oil being our biggest need, the Middle East would be in flames, that being our biggest supply). The Third World would crumble and the Western Nations would be severely crippled by the lack of resources and the rioting since our way of life is disrupting with no chance of repelling this enemy threat.


Why waste time attacking cities? There are military installations of greater importance, seats of power, and those resource centers you mentioned. Cities overall are not designed to put up the mainstay of power in a war of any kind last I remember.

How exactly would we beat back a first engagement anyway? We would be facing an enemy capable of landing its forces when it pleased, attacking any target the world around, and who has already damaged/crippled a major means of communication for us. (Satellites as Phoebus pointed out.)



BlackGuard said:


> The Imperium would bring in more regiments, still not seeing the need for Astartes, and this second confrontation would be even larger. I think ultimately we would even win this war. The Imperial Guard shows a severe lack of skill in regards to tactics and I believe even the weaker nations like Africa and South America show a better understanding of modern tactics than them. Their massed assaults would be massacred, their armored formations would crumble, and their so-called advance aircraft would probably do poorly against our own. I'm thinking a Stealh Fighter (I know they are limited) would do very well against them.


If the Imperium brought in more regiments, it would easily be the equivalent or greater than the first amount brought in. (So another dozen or so to say the least.)

The tactics employed by the Imperial Guard, and a fair amount of the Imperium, lies primarily on their greatest resource: bodies. A general might commit two hundred men to taking a point and lose half that, but he will be able to replace his losses with little trouble. Unlike us, the Imperium would have no end of fighters, we would.

As for their stuff fairing badly, have we reverted back to the foolish assumption that military and strategic points are being ignored again? This keeps getting said, but a fair number of you choose to ignore it. *The Imperium or space marine invaders will have orbital superiority; they will be able to strike at our military locations with no concern for anyone striking back because we cannot.*




BlackGuard said:


> After the second wave, the orbital bombardment would only worsen and they'd be hitting even more remote targets, destroying chunks of our dwindling resources. No doubt some of the weakest nations on earth (Africa, South America, and portions of Asia) would seek a peace and truce with the Imperium. They might have a sensible commander who would privately accept, giving future invasions a secret jump point.


This is something that would have likely happened much sooner, unless the objective is overall annihilation of Earth in which case it would not happen at all. Or if it did, they would be slaughtered in the end.



BlackGuard said:


> The third wave would be the charm. The Imperium has spent their nessecary amount of lives to realize that we are smarter than them. They would bring in Legions of the Imperial Guard along with a few companies from a random space marines chapter. More space ships, more aircraft, and more ammunition. The last formations of real resistance would only hold out for another few weeks or months. Those traitors nations would probably be severely fucked up by their new Imperial masters.


All thats needed is a single space ship and they win; we can't fight back against one. 

I truly do not understand how you have come to the conclusion that it will take three waves and ten years of fighting to come to this.



BlackGuard said:


> At this point it would turn into the world's largest gureilla war. I think here is where we'd do rather well, since we have a great history of such tactics. Tactics that the Imperium has seen, but from my reading time and again fail to be able to truly supress such tactics. The Astartes would do well in crushing most of the gurillea networks -- but they are so many and this is an entire world.


Imperium has no qualms wiping out an entire city holding insurgents and making it an example of what will happen. How many places will remain willing to harbour resistance after that? And I mean honestly.



BlackGuard said:


> In conclusion, I think we'd do well given our technology state and our sheer will to be hardasses and stubborn, but ultimately we would fall just like every other world the Imperium had conquored. We may send hundreds of thousands to their beloved Corpse Emperor, hell maybe even a few million if they're truly stupid -- but the Astartes would get us.


For this, I point to the last post of Phoebus.



Now everyone remember the following: *the topic of this thread is what would happen if* _space marines_* invaded Earth. This thread is not about if the *_Imperium_ *does it; keep that in mind because there is a pretty big difference.*


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Going to backtrack the conversation. Back to the tank armor:

I don't think you quite understand how tank armor is defined, Phoebus. It's really tough to directly compare armor to each other, particularly different types (composite versus reactive, for example). I could have 200mm of this one composite and compare it to 100mm of composite armor on another tank and say, "Look, my tank has twice the other guy's tank. It's twice as good!" But not all composite armor is built equally, and in fact, his tank may be better protected. That's why there's a neat conversion we can do called RHA (rolled homogenous armor). 

We can convert any tank armor over to RHA (which is composed of conventional steel used up through WW2) and then directly compare the numbers. My fictional 200mm composite armor tank might have a RHA rating of 350mm while the other guy's 100mm of composite armor might get 450. Thus even though my armor is thicker, his tank is better protected.

Now if you want to take the words of "Conventional" steel armor from the codex and imagine it as as equivalent to some futuristic super steel that's a dozen or more times stronger than what we have today, you're free to do so. I find it hard to believe that the writers would have used the words conventional when they actually meant "super-uber steel that beats the crap out of it".


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Well given the new perspective given by dark reever (Focusing on marines) I will say the following.

1) If it was just marine without a battcruiser or better supporting them then we would win just by press of numbers (We aint guardsmen), and last time I checked 100000+ Military jets armed with everything from bunker busters, to tactical nukes will shit kick a hand full of thuderhawks

2) Marine orbital bombardments, and the like seem to work on the same level of tech we have (Stupid right?) so our targeting methods for support like air strikes, and the like are just as good/bad as theirs.

3) Fanboyism aside the laws of physics make sure stuff like bunker busters AT rounds will kill marines on mass (Come the hell one it doesn't need to penetrate to reduce your body to mush).

4) 1000 super elite soldiers vs 1 billion well armed soldiers with 100 times the available support....

5) DId someone idiotically just suggest that because orks are really really strong they can create more force then a rpg.... my god man I am not insulting you, but unless their anatomy defies natural law its just not happening, not to mention a ork slugger is just a really shitty low velocity gun that shots really big round (50mm+) and those can kill marines so the argument that orks are awesome doesn't cut it.

6) Once again if 40k made sense (For instance a marine chapter numbering 100000), and we had actual theoretical specs on marine weapons one could argue that the marines would win, but going on common sense they would lose....badly.

7) I swear anyone who thinks otherwise is buying into the fluff to much, and ignoring the obvious fact that you have to put the irrational nonsense common in 40k into realist (Obeying natural laws of the universe) terms. For instance realistically could a marine chapter master defeat say a Necron lord....in fluff maybe, but in reality such a being would be almost invincible, and would be fighting a biological creature with virtually no means of causing permanent damage to him... yah 40k ain't vary nonsensical at times.

7) Step away from the fluff, and look at the cold hard fact of how things work, for instance we know today that we can make incredibly resilient armor that can stop most kinetic weapons, however we have learned since WW1-2 that after a certain point just stooping the projectile doesn't stop the kinetic force released, so stuff that has a lot of velocity will still cripple kill you even if you stop the projectile, and last time I checked marine armor doesn't have a ultra sophisticated chock absorbing system (No speculation in favor of the sci-fi space knight please or this debate will never end). So going on what we do no about marine armor, stuff like anti material rifle even if they couldn't penetrate would knock the marine clear of his feet (Going on the idea that all their armor does is stop incoming progectiles flat.

8) This is the important one kids. Multiple times we have seen in cannon! that the joints, and visors in marines suits are easily penetrate (In two stories regular humans stab crude weapons throw these joints wounding, and or killing marines). We today have special forces that can shoot such small targets from a good half a mile away (Well out of bolter range), and considering the sheer volume of fire marines would be taking I would expect at least 20 of those 10000 round would end up in the marines brain or throat. Not to mention we have a little thing call white phosphorous round for taking out hard shit like marines, and trust me a white phosphorous round in a marines for arm or neck, and its all over super human or not.

!!!come the hell on did you expect a fictional faction developed for a table top game written into existence by people with a bare minimum understanding of the military, and theoretical science to be able to defeat a real military, that has perfected the real art of war for 1000 of years? Once again if space marine really existed, and made rational sense as a efficient interstellar military force then, we would lose. However looking at the current fiction they would have to nuke us to win.....maybe even explode the earth.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

BlackGuard said:


> In a stand-up war, the Earth would not simply be overrun in a matter of months or years. We would endure for prehaps a decade or so. This is based on the assumption that the Imperium stumbles across our world, we refuse to join, they send in the Imperial Guard first. Mind you, to them were look primitive with our meagre technology, and the Imperial Guard would engage us on our own terms, on our own world, and would take horrific casualities.


Sorry, but this isn't even close.

There is a finite number of strategic military objectives in each nation. Case in point, there's something like a dozen (or so) major air bases and a like number of army posts hosting maneuver divisions (infantry, armor, etc.). A single Strike Cruiser orbiting over the US could literally destroy our major military/logistical centers in a day or two. This isn't an exaggeration. I don't know what capabilities you think we have, but fighter and bomber aircraft, even if launched in time to escape orbital bombardment, can only fly for so long. There are only so many places at which they can refuel, re-arm, be maintained, etc. The same holds true for our ground forces. There is a finite number of places where we can store munitions, fuel tanks, etc. Even our lightest, most responsive forces need a good 18-24 hours to pack up and move out. The movement of an entire mechanized force to avoid imminent orbital attack would be an incredible logistical operation.



> Now is it possible for them to strike ALL of our resources at once? No, they may get a surgical strike here, an air raid there, but overall we have shown, as a race in this modern time, far more competence with hiding our fueling stations and being very secretive about our resources.


No, we're really not. Certain strategic assets (e.g., nuclear weapons) and headquarters locations are given heightened security and exceptional positioning, but that hardly holds true for conventional forces. Hardened bunkers for aircraft, etc. Fences and security around fuel depots. Secured storage for munitions. That's about it. And it's a massive logistical footprint. A Strike Cruiser missing an air base would be like you missing the broad side of a barn with a shotgun.

As for everything else, what surgical strikes? What air raids? This pre-supposes that an Astartes Chapter or some Imperial naval task force/Regiment combo would feel the need to give up initiative, advantage, and the ultimate high ground our of sheer masochism.

The scenario you paint is highly unlikely precisely for the above reason.

An Imperial Force (and the original scenario had an Astartes Chapter) including a number of warships (anywhere from 1-4 battle barges, half a dozen or more strike cruisers, a number of escort vessels) would pound the hell out of major population centers, infrastructure, and military targets. It would be able to do so unopposed.

Literally overnight (or maybe after a handful of days), major cities would be in ruins; the infrastructure defining our lives (electricity, telephones, running water) would be in ruins; communication would be severed for virtually everyone except the military (who would be reduced to using tactical radios) and hobbyists owning their own radio sets; hundreds of millions of human beings would be slaughtered as our major cities were turned into charnel houses (in the US alone, we probably would lose something in the order of 50-60 million people from our major population centers); civilian survivors would have no way to communicate with their leaders; and the armies of Earth would have been reduced to tattered remnants, bereft of their high command, unable to coordinate with one another in a meaningful way, deprived of their home bases, and probably left without the resources to marshall to the field for any prolonged period of time (this especially true for mechanized forces).

All this, before the Imperium felt the need to land _a single troop_ on the surface of Earth.

Any number of possible post-invasion guerilla scenarios can be raised. The only thing that can be stated with surety is that the Imperium is the the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable. It has quashed insurgencies in far more advanced societies and planets than 21st century Earth.



hailene said:


> Going to backtrack the conversation. Back to the tank armor:
> 
> I don't think you quite understand how tank armor is defined, Phoebus. It's really tough to directly compare armor to each other, particularly different types (composite versus reactive, for example).


I'm tracking all this. 

What I'm getting at is that it's just as tough to compare armor from today with armor from the very far future.



> Now if you want to take the words of "Conventional" steel armor from the codex and imagine it as as equivalent to some futuristic super steel that's a dozen or more times stronger than what we have today, you're free to do so. I find it hard to believe that the writers would have used the words conventional when they actually meant "super-uber steel that beats the crap out of it".


I take it with a grain of salt when I noticed authors, who are human and thus prone to flaw, use a variety of terms in a variety of publications. I also consider things like:
"What is hardened steel?"
"Does the same term mean the same thing _forty thousand years_ from now?"
"How does hardened steel come about--what processes are used?"
"What techniques do they use forty thousand years from now to make hardened steel?"
"Are they better techniques?"
"Are the materials they add to the steel to aid in the process of hardening it superior to what we have now?"
"Is the overall result better?"

So on, so forth. 




LukeValantine said:


> Well given the new perspective given by dark reever (Focusing on marines) I will say the following.
> ...
> 2) Marine orbital bombardments, and the like seem to work on the same level of tech we have (Stupid right?) so our targeting methods for support like air strikes, and the like are just as good/bad as theirs.


I will address points I didn't in earlier posts. 

Even if that were true (and it's not), our targeting methods allow us to strike targets the size of a hut from hundreds of miles away (cruise missiles). Given superior sensors and direct fire munitions (lances, bombardment cannon) capable of engaging with accuracy from _thousands of kilometers_ away, I'd say we're kind of screwed here.



> 5) DId someone idiotically just suggest that because orks are really really strong they can create more force then a rpg.... my god man I am not insulting you, but unless their anatomy defies natural law its just not happening, not to mention a ork slugger is just a really shitty low velocity gun that shots really big round (50mm+) and those can kill marines so the argument that orks are awesome doesn't cut it.


Actually, when you say I did something idiotically, it's kind of an insult. :biggrin:

But rather than respond in kind, I'd ask that you re-read my statement. I posted, quite clearly, that engaging a super-fast guy with an unguided RPG in the middle of a fire-fight is an exercise in futility. It's the shaped charge that will damage the Space Marine, and if the guy firing misses--which he will almost certainly will--there's going to be virtually no shrapnel for us to argue whether it would or would not damage advanced armor from the future. I also stated that, _where Orks are concerned, _ they happen to be superhumanly strong as well, and thus achieve comparable results in melee combat. If you still think that these are untrue statements, so be it--but I struggle to see how this could be the case.



> 6) Once again if 40k made sense (For instance a marine chapter numbering 100000), and we had actual theoretical specs on marine weapons one could argue that the marines would win, but going on common sense they would lose....badly.


Then I'm not sure what you're defining as common sense. What I'm doing is overlaying the *stated effect* of 40K technology against what *we know* our technology can do. What _doesn't_ make sense is that the guy capable of bombarding a planet back to the stone age would somehow cede that advantage to get involved in the pointless fight you describe.



> 7) Step away from the fluff, and look at the cold hard fact of how things work, ...


You mean like arguing along the lines of actual logistical constraints and considerations? 'Cause I'm pretty sure darkreever and I are the only ones doing that right about now. :grin:



> ... for instance we know today that we can make incredibly resilient armor that can stop most kinetic weapons, however we have learned since WW1-2 that after a certain point just stooping the projectile doesn't stop the kinetic force released, so stuff that has a lot of velocity will still cripple kill you even if you stop the projectile, and last time I checked marine armor doesn't have a ultra sophisticated chock absorbing system (No speculation in favor of the sci-fi space knight please or this debate will never end). So going on what we do no about marine armor, stuff like anti material rifle even if they couldn't penetrate would knock the marine clear of his feet (Going on the idea that all their armor does is stop incoming progectiles flat.


That's all well and good. Now you go ahead and point to me the _anti-personnel weapon_ that can do what you described above. Then we can actually have a serious conversation. 



> !!!come the hell on did you expect a fictional faction developed for a table top game written into existence by people with a bare minimum understanding of the military, and theoretical science to be able to defeat a real military, that has perfected the real art of war for 1000 of years? Once again if space marine really existed, and made rational sense as a efficient interstellar military force then, we would lose. However looking at the current fiction they would have to nuke us to win.....maybe even explode the earth.


In the current fiction, the stated enemy would render us incapable of fighting a meaningful resistance before they even landed a single Astartes. The idea that we would have massed formations, artillery, air support, mechanized assets, etc., is born on the assumption that the invader didn't feel like depriving us of all of the above. No offense, but it's a poor assumption. It's the equivalent of the U.S. and their allies during the 1991 Desert Storm offensive deciding that it's not a good idea, after all, to commence with that days-long bombardment that shattered the Iraqi ground forces, and instead embark on mass desert-based mechanized warfare against an entrenched foe in full possession of his logistical lines, with his units able to communicate with one another.

Again, it's a poor assumption.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Likewise, I could say, is the steel they're using then inferior to the steel we're using now? It could very possibly be. There's as much support for either way, when talking about conventional steel.

Having insufficient evidence for either, I'd like to say it's the same as our modern day equivalent.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Ok i'm out of the conversation, I made my point and really not much more I can say about a fictional military without hard/theoretical facts about such a force.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

hailene said:


> Likewise, I could say, is the steel they're using then inferior to the steel we're using now? It could very possibly be. There's as much support for either way, when talking about conventional steel.
> 
> Having insufficient evidence for either, I'd like to say it's the same as our modern day equivalent.


You're right in that there's insufficient firm evidence. And ultimately everyone is entitled to their opinion. Having said that, the idea that, forty thousand years from now, steel in broad use happens to be inferior to what we have today strikes me as a rather odd proposition.

But, again, to each their own. 

LukeValantine,

No worries. My main issue with your argument had nothing to do with fiction vs. "real world". It had to do with the idea that there would somehow be this mass warfare going on in the ground and the skies. And there's really no logical reason to suppose that there would be.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

In the grimdark universe where technology is seen as sorcery and knowledge is continually lost, it's not so far fetched. I mean, one of the prevailing themes in Warhammer.

Just because it's 38,000 years in the future doesn't mean they're more advanced in every way.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Just a quick point I think is worth raising.
I thought it was only movie guns that knock people off their feet?
For a gun, fired by a person, to have the kinetic energy to throw another person off their feet it would also knock the person firing the weapon over. 
So, for a gun to be powerful enough to knock a Marine in power armour over it would need to be fired from something like a Hummer.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

normtheunsavoury said:


> Just a quick point I think is worth raising.
> I thought it was only movie guns that knock people off their feet?
> For a gun, fired by a person, to have the kinetic energy to throw another person off their feet it would also knock the person firing the weapon over.
> So, for a gun to be powerful enough to knock a Marine in power armour over it would need to be fired from something like a Hummer.


Norm this whole argument is based on the idea that Space Marines would be charging at a fortified position for no better reason then "It'd be cool." The arguments for Space Marines losing has as many holes in it as swiss cheese. 

Granted with the scenario set up by the OP I agree they would lose, but what Space Marine would fight like that?


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

hailene said:


> In the grimdark universe where technology is seen as sorcery and knowledge is continually lost, it's not so far fetched. I mean, one of the prevailing themes in Warhammer.
> 
> Just because it's 38,000 years in the future doesn't mean they're more advanced in every way.


More advanced than the Dark Age of Technology? I'd agree with you that Humanity in 40k falls well short of that.

More advanced than the 21st century? I have no trouble seeing that. The loss of knowledge, the mysticism and religion that goes hand-in-hand with technology... those are prevailing themes. But not to that degree of regression. When we're talking about lost knowledge in 40k, we're talking about losing the ability to craft highly advanced technology--space ships, superior vehicles, etc. Not turning metallurgy back tens of millennia. That might hold true for those worlds that have fallen to feral-, feudal-, or gunpowder-level societies... but that's not the Imperial "standard".

Cheers,
P.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

The knowledge lost isn't uniform. They have advanced drive systems and weapons that make our most powerful nuclear weapons look like firecrackers.

On the other hand, they have to use radio packs the size of backpacks. 

Do keep in mind that these materials are STC constructs, and as in the article, it can be made of almost any local ingredients.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

STC or not, if something's said to be made from a certain material, I go back to my original questions. 

The radios, incidentally, are for specific purposes--more than likely, long-distance communications. We have just as much evidence for ordinary infantrymen using micro-beads for their intra-unit comms.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

But what sort of damage could an Astartes take?
Let's assume, just to begin that, for one reason or another, the Astartes are assualting a prepared position. The heavy stuff might be able to take them out if they get enough shots on target. GPMG-type weapons, you know the stuff I mean. I imagine that enough of those shots on target would damage the Power Armour and maybe slow the Astartes down a bit, at least. RPGs, again as has been mentioned, would probably be enough to kill a Marine, or at least take them out of the fight. Same deal with tank rounds, although it seems something of a waste for the main gun on a MBT to be firing at infantry. The SAW might be helpful, maybe enough to buy time to re-position, or a lucky shot could hit the neck.
However, I doubt very much whether any of this could ever happen. Orbital bombardments have been covered, but I'd just say that they wouldn't even need to target the military. Take out a couple of power stations, maybe a sewage works/resevoir, do that to some of the planet's larger cities, and watch the civilian population demand the Earth give up. Wartime spirit or no, people will not live like animals with none of the comforts we take for granted. To take out a military base on foot, then Drop Pods would render any perimeter defence moot by landing smack bang in the middle of the camp.
What damage would an Astartes suffer? Moving so quickly I would imagine that, barring a lucky shot, most would avoid RPG-like weapons. Heavy machine guns, and stuff mounted on the back of vehicles, might crack some armour and bodies by sheer volume of fire. But short of taking off a leg or headshotting them or pulping their insides with a solid burst, Astartes physiology would keep them moving. Broken bones heal in minutes, seconds even for fractues that would put a normal man down for weeks. Blood loss would be virtually nil thanks to their adapted blood, and even massive internal damage would be less fatal through the massive redundancies of their additional organs and the med-systems of the PA. If the Astartes get into close range, then the Opfor is boned, without doubt. No earth force could stand toe-to-toe with any Marines unless they had crafted the perfect ambush and the attackers somehow blundered into it. Even then, I don't think it would be a smashing victory and casualties would be high. High enough for the folk back home to get angry about.
When it comes to our vaunted tanks, yes they are great. However, they don't even need to be destroyed, just damaged. There aren't that many to begin with and they take a hell of a long time to repair- too long to make a difference once they're out of action. Same with planes of all kinds. Again, the mobility of the Astartes is incredible. Even with every resource pouring in, any Earth force sent to respond to attack would spend all its time in transit. It would never get anywhere near the Astartes before they've finished the job and buggered off; and what if there's no facilities at the destination? These forces would take days or weeks to get set up, by which time their hombase is a ruin, their planes can't find a long enough runway in range and neither can the refueling planes. And without the GPS system to guide it, most of the 'advanced' present-day militaries would be lost. Bye-bye Cruise, bye-bye Nukes, bye-bye long-range air strikes. Thunderhawks may be vulnerable to many Attack planes, but if they can't navigate, what use are they?
It's a fun question, but I agree with a couple of commenters that the value of orbital supremacy is rather overlooked, especially when you've got powerful weapons you can deploy when you're up there. Let's just hope they don't meet Bruce Willis and his gang of Roughnecks in a Shuttle- a Battlebarge wouldn't stand a chance!

GFP


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

First of all, I here orbital supremecy alot in this argument.

While it is true that its important, there's only so much you can do. As shown numerous times throughout history, you can only do so much with a bombardment before you HAVE to land troops.
Also, you guys do realize that Nuclear weaponry CAN enter orbit right? Hell, that's what it does to find it's target, actually. The same goes for the experimental laser weaponry we mount on the Boeing-747. The fact is that simply because they are in space doesn't mean we can't reach them.. Hell, if we really were desperate we could just send shuttles into them.

Next point, on communications. WE HAVE RADIO AND ORBITAL TRANSMISSIONS. It doesn't take weeks to get a message anymore, it takes seconds. Also, ground units do not need 24 hours to mobilize, they can do it in 4. We have divisions all around the world that could be ready and on site within the first 12 hours.

As stated before, Guerilla warfare would play a very important role. It would probably win the war for us. Otherwise we could hide underground until they've gotten all landed and set up, and then make fast air raids and quick ground strikes at certain parts of their army.


----------



## Lima6 (Sep 30, 2008)

Just my 40(k) cents, but we have to assume the Marines would at least scupper our GPS network from the outset. This pretty much renders most of our advanced (as in guided munitions and effective C2 plus our battlespace awarness) weapons usless and puts our tech level back to early 70's.

If they didn't remove this capability and for some reason landed and began an infantry war we would still fall over fairly quickly. Its pretty hard to maintain accurate fire on a (even a marine sized) target whilst being under fire yourself. Given that the SMs could shrug off pretty much all of our personal wpns fire and advance on us, whilst putting down an incredible amount of higly accurate fire themselves, no modern fighting force would last long, especially when they get within chainsword range. I don't care how higly trained or specialised modern forces are, there is no one on the planet who would try to face up to an assault by even a squad of super-charged giants who could remove your head with a flick of their index finger.

We ma take a few out with lucky shots or by using smart weapons if they were still available to us, but unless we killed a SM outright, they would simply heal and recover and be back to kick ass and chew bubblegum another day...
SMs for the win.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Cyleune said:


> First of all, I here orbital supremecy alot in this argument.
> 
> While it is true that its important, there's only so much you can do. As shown numerous times throughout history, you can only do so much with a bombardment before you HAVE to land troops.


Yeah, but it's never shown in history what happens when a strike can happen anywhere on the planet with nuke caliber destruction. While you do need to land troops, a Space Marine force could land troops anywhere on the planet, at any time. We may have the numerical advantage on the world scale, but maybe not the local.



> Also, you guys do realize that Nuclear weaponry CAN enter orbit right? Hell, that's what it does to find it's target, actually. The same goes for the experimental laser weaponry we mount on the Boeing-747. The fact is that simply because they are in space doesn't mean we can't reach them.. Hell, if we really were desperate we could just send shuttles into them.



ICBMs are able to enter low orbit, not the level of orbit a massive starship would have to maintain. Same thing with the 747. Maybe we could fire nukes into orbit to attack the ships, but it has no course correction if the starship moved. As far as flying a shuttle to them, whats to prevent them from being shot down? Oh yeah, nothing.



> Next point, on communications. WE HAVE RADIO AND ORBITAL TRANSMISSIONS. It doesn't take weeks to get a message anymore, it takes seconds. Also, ground units do not need 24 hours to mobilize, they can do it in 4. We have divisions all around the world that could be ready and on site within the first 12 hours.


First thing Space Marines would do is take out our satellites to slow down communications. That would be basic strategy, once the satellites are taken down our global communications are slowed quite a bit.

As far as mobilizing ground forces, Space Marines can be dropped in from orbit anywhere in the world in seconds. Within 12 hours, their job would be done and they'd be gone from any target.



> As stated before, Guerilla warfare would play a very important role. It would probably win the war for us. Otherwise we could hide underground until they've gotten all landed and set up, and then make fast air raids and quick ground strikes at certain parts of their army.


Guerilla warfare would win it for us? If a group of Space Marines found us the rest of the imperium wouldn't be far behind. You also assume that every single person on the planet would be against the Imperium. What about people who would join them to spare their lives? Did that never cross anyones mind?

This argument is full of assumptions, assumptions that Astartes don't know how to conduct war and assumptions that we are unbeatable.


----------



## Brother Emund (Apr 17, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> Just a quick point I think is worth raising.
> I thought it was only movie guns that knock people off their feet?
> For a gun, fired by a person, to have the kinetic energy to throw another person off their feet it would also knock the person firing the weapon over.
> So, for a gun to be powerful enough to knock a Marine in power armour over it would need to be fired from something like a Hummer.


*Norm*, I take it you mean the .50cal machine gun? The Barratt sniper rifle also fires such a round. Go on Youtube and tap in Canadian snipers in Afganistan and see what a .50cal can do to a human body. Not knocked backwards I'm afraid... more like reduced to scraps of bloody meat!!! :russianroulette:

Has anyone thought about which Astartes might arrive or be used? If its the Ultra's, although we lose, some of our planet would survive. But if the Wolves turn up....


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm at a loss as to how the pro-earth people are so blantenly ignoring the key points Phobeus and Darkreever have pointed out again and again. Seriously stop talking about how good our aircraft would be, or how we could lie low and then lauch air raids. How are people still not paying attention to the fact that they would take out all our satelites, which renders all our best tech useless. How are people still ignoring the fact that we would have no airfields left to launch our aircraft from. The list goes on and on. 

And fire a nuke at a ship in orbit? Well lets just pretend we can actually do that for a moment. First, the ships will be able to destroy those missiles before they even reach them. And secondly, will our nukes actually do anything against a void shield? I doubt it.

Seriously, i admire you pro-earth guys enthusiasm and optimistic attitudes. But you really have to face the harsh reality that is we just don't even begin to stand a chance. Just look back to the points Phobeus and Darkreever have made as you've clearly ignored them the first time round.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

Cyleune said:


> First of all, I here orbital supremecy alot in this argument.
> 
> While it is true that its important, there's only so much you can do. As shown numerous times throughout history, you can only do so much with a bombardment before you HAVE to land troops.


Where in history are the examples of forces using weapons capable of penetrating the earths crust? Where are the examples of laser weapondry? Life-eater virus attacks? History teaches us many things but applying its leasons directly to advanced (theorectical) weapons is silly.



> Also, you guys do realize that Nuclear weaponry CAN enter orbit right? Hell, that's what it does to find it's target, actually. The same goes for the experimental laser weaponry we mount on the Boeing-747. The fact is that simply because they are in space doesn't mean we can't reach them.. Hell, if we really were desperate we could just send shuttles into them.


A ship in high orbit, constant movement, shielded against attack and armed with point defense weapons has nothing to fear from any of the things you listed. This is unfortunetly exactly what Imperial Cruisers are. 



> Next point, on communications. WE HAVE RADIO AND ORBITAL TRANSMISSIONS. It doesn't take weeks to get a message anymore, it takes seconds. Also, ground units do not need 24 hours to mobilize, they can do it in 4. We have divisions all around the world that could be ready and on site within the first 12 hours.


I would imagine a space-faring race would obliterate our sattelites as a matter of course, not even as an act of war. The satellites are as much a threat to a ship as anything else we could send up there, so away they go.

Four hours is still to slow. By the time warning gets out of the Space Marine attack its half over. By the time your regiment gets there all they'll find is burnout buildings and bits of people. 



> As stated before, Guerilla warfare would play a very important role. It would probably win the war for us. Otherwise we could hide underground until they've gotten all landed and set up, and then make fast air raids and quick ground strikes at certain parts of their army.


Guerilla warfare requires a home-territory, some-what friendly natives and superior mobility to be successful. The Imperium is willing (and has been demonstrated as doing) to burn entire continents to the ground and smash mountains into dust. Where are your hiding grounds now? The Imperium is willing (and has been demonstrated as doing) to brutalize neutral (or even Imperial-friendly) groups in order to make an example of minimal resitance. The population of modern earth has never seen anything on the scale of what they can unleash and is not mentally prepared for the backlash resistance will cause (hell look at the political upheveal about the war in Iraq) and would fold at the first opportunity. Where is your support/supplying/hiding populace now? Space Marines are capable of deploying from orbit in moments and Imperial Guard regiments are numerous enough to blanket enitre cities (thus making mobility and response time a non-issue). Where is your superior moblitiy now?


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Just to clarify what i meant, here's a clip






It may well blow a hole in a Marine but stop him? I doubt it.

Other than RPG's we really haven't got much that could be used against a giant in power armour, especially while he's shooting at you.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

.50 depleted uranium round would probably do the trick..... Well, to the head anyway. Still screwed though.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

.....we are assuming one ship not a imperial navy, I mean me and Phoebus have disagreed, but really some of the people posting now are just getting weird. I will repeat they have around 1000 men, and a hand full of armor. Also do you know home many F^$%%$ air fields satellites, tank depos on earth their are? More then even a cruiser, and 1000 soldiers could target in a year. My god I will repeat their are more then 1 billion soldiers in the world, and more then 100000 active peaces of armor ready to enter the field, FWI their have been 9,000 Ahbrams M1 tanks built, and many are still in service. 

I mean sweet jesus, 40k marines would take 10 years for the marines to even neutralize or damage all the worlds military facilities, (Some are incredibly well hidden, and no they can't magically know where they all are). Seriously this argument is getting pathetic with 90% of the post relying on the marines have a giant death cruiser hovering above us. Here is a melon scratcher for you if their cruiser some how did go down (Very possible in that even cruisers have to fire from low orbit to hit accurately, then what the marines are done. You know why because that is the only F7%^%^& thing that would allow any army to take on 10000 times their numbers, and win.

Also for the sake of the author, and dark reaver keep on topic. 1 marine chapter vs a planet of billion without any imperial support. If you want to compromise this thread by ignoring the original purpose then I will start throwing out idiotic conjectures to like what if the tau magically appears and started fighting the marine? See how quickly such arguments compromise the whole point!

You know their are other militaries besides Britain, and the USA, and the fact in only takes 24 hours to move a sensible force half way accrosse the world these days right.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Something to note, for those wondering why a few of us keep mentioning the marines having ships, its because that would be the only way for them to get here in the first place. Unless we are working with the marines just magically being here, in which case they would likely lose because their mobility and ability to knock out targets from orbit, be it high or low (because they can do so from either, and accuracy from high orbit is not bad at all as is displayed a number of times via the novels with have to go on.)


Though if it was a full chapter of marines, they would have access to more than one ship capable of bombarding a planet. The likely fleet disposition of an entire chapter would be a battlebarge or two, six to nine strike cruisers, and a dozen escort sized vessels (frigates and destroyers.)

Of the above fleet, the escorts might be capable of bombardment, but would be the ones that need to do it in low orbit and so would be the least likely to do so. The barges and cruisers are all capable of bombarding targets, thats one of the main focuses of their bombardment cannons; to be able to attack a target from high orbit.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> .....we are assuming one ship not a imperial navy, ...


Nope, the original topic had an entire Chapter--meaning, 1-4 Battle Barges, probably half a dozen Strike Cruisers, and an unknown number of escort ships. But even if it was a single Strike Cruiser, all you're really doing is adding to the timeline. The paradigm of an orbital enemy pounding us with impunity still can't be addressed.



> I mean me and Phoebus have disagreed, but really some of the people posting now are just getting weird. ... Also do you know home many F^$%%$ air fields ...


Yes, I do actually. Less than two dozen air bases throughout the US house fighter or bomber aircraft and the material/fuel needed to keep them operating. Less than two dozen Army or Marine Corps posts throughout the continental US and Hawaii host mechanized forces or rotary wing aircraft in meaningful numbers and the material/fuel needed to keep them operating.

You seem to think that there are a great deal more places, but there aren't. It all comes down to the individual rate of fire for each of the Chapter's Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers. America's ability to field and coordinate fighting forces on a meaningful scale would be taken away from us within hours.



> ... satellites, ...


Question: do *you* know how many satellites are dedicated to the US warfighting GPS system? Or the EU GPS system? Or the Russian one? Hint: very few. But even if the Astartes are incapable of figuring out which ones they are, shooting a few hundred satellites out of orbit (ruining our TV and internet in the process!) would take maybe a few hours.



> ... tank depos on earth their are?


See above.



> More then even a cruiser ... could target in a year.


It's the inaccuracy of this statement that puts us at a fundamental divide. It simply comes down to the rate of fire of the ships in orbit versus the number of bases out there--which are far fewer than you think.



> I mean sweet jesus, 40k marines would take 10 years for the marines to even neutralize or damage all the worlds military facilities, (Some are incredibly well hidden, and no they can't magically know where they all are).


No it wouldn't, and no they're not. With the exception of nuclear missile silos and North Korea's DMZ artillery emplacements, virtually every military base in the world is an above-surface location.



> Seriously this argument is getting pathetic with 90% of the post relying on the marines have a giant death cruiser hovering above us.


How is realism pathetic? Is this fictional setting not based on starships capable of leveling entire cities or burning entire continents with their weaponry?



> Here is a melon scratcher for you if their cruiser some how did go down (Very possible in that even cruisers have to fire from low orbit to hit accurately, then what the marines are done. You know why because that is the only F7%^%^& thing that would allow any army to take on 10000 times their numbers, and win.


How exactly would the Astartes warship(s) be shot down? Do you know how long it would take for one of our ICBMs to reach orbit?

Furthermore, your assertions about fighting an army a thousand times larger betrays your fundamental lack of knowledge where an army's logistical considerations are concerned. Not to be rude, but please don't even try to pretend that you know what it would take to even put half a million soldiers in one place, for one battle.



> Also for the sake of the author, and dark reaver keep on topic. 1 marine chapter vs a planet of billion without any imperial support.


Brother, you're the one that was just talking about ONE Cruiser... :grin:



> If you want to compromise this thread by ignoring the original purpose then I will start throwing out idiotic conjectures to like ...


... the Astartes warships magically crashing, or the Astartes deciding to land troops for no reason? I kid, I kid! :grin:



> You know their are other militaries besides Britain, and the USA, and the fact in only takes 24 hours to move a sensible force half way accrosse the world these days right.


Wrong again. Incredibly mobile formations, such as the 82nd Airborne, the British Paras, or other paratrooper elements from other countries could theoretically have their ready-response elements anywhere in the world within 24 hours. For the 82nd Airborne, that is a single Brigade Combat Team--roughly 2,000 soldiers--including light artillery and vehicles and nothing else.

By contrast, it would take weeks to get a "heavy" Division, such as the US 1st Cavalry or 3rd Infantry (both equipped with tanks, helicopters, etc.) out the door and in place to fight a war.

I'm not trying to be rude, LukeValantine, but this debate is going on only because some people just aren't well informed regarding our war-fighting capabilities, and the logistical considerations necessary for us to fight a war.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> .....we are assuming one ship not a imperial navy, I mean me and Phoebus have disagreed, but really some of the people posting now are just getting weird. I will repeat they have around 1000 men, and a hand full of armor. Also do you know home many F^$%%$ air fields satellites, tank depos on earth their are? More then even a cruiser, and 1000 soldiers could target in a year. My god I will repeat their are more then 1 billion soldiers in the world, and more then 100000 active peaces of armor ready to enter the field, FWI their have been 9,000 Ahbrams M1 tanks built, and many are still in service.


A couple of Strike Cruisers (2-3, which I think is probably about standard for a full company) is capable of dealing out quite a lot of damage. Unapposed and with out a drasticly short time-line they can sit back and bombard to their hearts content (and ammo supplies obviously). The fact that each individually can target entire continents without requiring a drastic shift in position, can likely target multiple positions at once and use their point defense/fighters to clear the satellites means that they can deal with multiple locations at once. 



> I mean sweet jesus, 40k marines would take 10 years for the marines to even neutralize or damage all the worlds military facilities, (Some are incredibly well hidden, and no they can't magically know where they all are). Seriously this argument is getting pathetic with 90% of the post relying on the marines have a giant death cruiser hovering above us.


It would indeed take a single ship a very long time to destroy EVERY supply depot and miltary base on Earth. But why waste time on that? Hit a couple of key ones and use the drop podding marines to eliminate trickier spots/assassinte leaders/interogate soldiers for locations of more bases. This takes a couple of days and we are largely unable to respond (the Cruisers are completely beyond are reach and the Marines can be in and out in hours). These attacks not only reduce are ability to fight back effectively on a large scale but also drastically weaken morale. Can you picture fighting an opponent who can appear at will, make bloodly giblets of soldiers just like you and then disappear with no loses of their own? 

And of course they have a gaint death cruiser. They're SPACE marines. From SPACE! How else did they get here?



> Here is a melon scratcher for you if their cruiser some how did go down (Very possible in that even cruisers have to fire from low orbit to hit accurately, then what the marines are done. You know why because that is the only F7%^%^& thing that would allow any army to take on 10000 times their numbers, and win.


How is it likely that they lose a cruiser? The pilots of these crafts are experts and have probably blasted more worlds (and more advanced worlds) to oblivion than many soldiers have seen combats.

Marines would certainly be in hot water if the cruiser went down (which is increadibly unlikely) but they certainly wouldn't be "done". They would go underground, become the worst type of querillas and wait for the rest of the Chapter and the Imperium at large to come pick them up.



> Also for the sake of the author, and dark reaver keep on topic. 1 marine chapter vs a planet of billion without any imperial support.


Actually the topic was how much damage a marine can take. Which has been stated as being (and I paraphrase) "Quite a lot, though the exact amount is uncertain. Certainly they have both quicker healing capacity and a higher pain threshold."

Marines do not operate without Imperial support. It's not their purpose and it's a waste of precious resources. Marines come in and take off the serpents head and the the Guard follows and burns the body to ash. The Marine entry, which I described above and which others have also talked about is the only period of time their going to be on world. The mopping up operations, civilian pacifications and querilla wars are all the guards problem.



> You know their are other militaries besides Britain, and the USA, and the fact in only takes 24 hours to move a sensible force half way accrosse the world these days right.


24 hours is fast. You know whats faster? 0. Marine drop pods can be deployed anywhere on the planet at a moments notice. They can be fired from the far edge of the system (Ie. before we're aware that marines exist and are in the system) and marines can complete their missions and be extracted in a matter of hours. Without global communications moving a military from anywhere to somewhere else is going to do nothing but leave where ever they where completely vulnerable.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I see that this thread has made up its mind long before I got here so here goes, you win your fictional super race of space monks beats our modern military really I don't have the time to argue theoreticals on none existent fictional super warriors all day (although I have come damn close recently to my embarrassment), but even uprating in the fictional logic of 40k some chapter wouldn't do well against a planet like earth. Notice I have stopped giving a damn about trying to apply real world physics (Shooting down my arguments without presenting actually facts or real world equivalents about marines or their equipment is fun, but tires me right out). For instance some chapters don't have battle cruisers, and just use smaller imperial ships or only number a few 100. Sure if we are to accept 20% of the crap about marines then theoretically a decent chapter like the space wolves would wipe us out, but really do you think a splinter chapter without a battle cruiser could? Here is another annoying aspect about this thread are we talking the strongest or the weakest chapter. Or are all the best marines attacking a pointless backwater world. Is it a war of genocidal intent or are they a exploratory force? 

I admit that I have not been posting the most accurate of statements, but how the hell can I when talking about a fictional race that we know no hard facts about. Is a land raider more resilient then a M1 ahbram, can a thermonuclear bunker buster kill a imperial ship if it hits its command deck or its warp drive? I have no damn idea, and you bloody well know I don't and you don't either. So like any what if scenario involving fiction we will never reach a answer because its fiction you can make shit up to counter hard fact, and I lack the advanced scientific knowledge to even speculate on half of the wonky shit in 40k.

So you win. Damn can't believe I wasted all this time arguing fictional space knights vs the world to fans of said space knights. Why don't I just go into a marvel convention, and try to explain why wolverines powers are impossible...that's right I don't want to be beaten to death with a weapon-x comic....

I do apologies for getting upset, but damn I am getting sick of fiction always beating real life soldiers and heroes, but I guess that is the nature of sci-fi fantasy, everything is so incredibly over the top that making logical comparisons to real world stuff is impossible.

Here is a better argument would a army of master chiefs beat a space marine chapter? Hell if I know, but it would be slightly less offensive to military minded individuals to speculate, in that they don't actually exist!

Here is a example that illiterates the futility of what I have been trying to do (To my shame). Would the figamagic from awesome sauce the game be able to explodenate Africa? I say yes, because what could earth do to stop it when they can fire it from the sun at 100000 miles per hour? Good point ignoring that that is complete nonsense that draws on pseudo science that we don't even know would be possible.

In short marines win do to us really having no F^%^$ idea how powerful they should be, with some authors making them literally eat bolter round and ignore getting stepped on by warhound titans, while other make their stuff look like post apocalyptic crap with marines dying to small explosions, and sharpened chunks of metal. So how can anyone make a sound argument against them when you can night pick the best of the best fictional features of marines so they sound like demi gods that could even kill super man on a good day, and magically can detect were everything on a planet is, and know more about the worlds military then the people that live their.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

I get why you went into a rage lol whenever there are sci0fi things vs. reality the sci-fi always wins somehow...


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Its interesting, Luke you seem to be ready to ragequit and go on whinging about one thing or another. Yet you went ahead and typed up all that; either give it a rest and go away or grow a pair and stop the bitching.

This is like comparing why modern US soldiers might be better than those of the US revolutionary war. We don't exactly have access to the hardest or most accurate of facts but debate one way or another is possible.


Either make a claim and back it up without the whining or go away, there are other reasonable sorts who can do it as well and without the moaning and groaning.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> Notice I have stopped giving a damn about trying to apply real world physics (Shooting down my arguments without presenting actually facts or real world equivalents about marines or their equipment is fun, but tires me right out).


What real world physics have you presented? You repeatedly deride the concept of "made up" soldiers and starships, but so far you haven't really demonstrated a grasp of our own, real-world assets.

Case in point, you keep summoning images of a million of our soldiers taking on a thousand Astartes in a hypothetical "somewhere", without pausing to think whether there _ever were_ a million people in one place, for one battle, at any point in our history--or what it would take for this to happen. You also mention numbers that have no basis in reality (insofar as tanks, bases, etc., are concerned) and ignore really basic, to-the-point issues. Do you want me to post a list of the air bases and major Army posts in the US so you can get an idea of what I'm talking about?



> For instance some chapters don't have battle cruisers, and just use smaller imperial ships ...


ALL Chapters use Battle Barges, Strike Cruisers, and smaller escort vessels. I'm not sure why you're referencing battle-cruisers, which aren't Astartes vessels to begin with and aren't even as powerful as Battle Barges.



> ... or only number a few 100.


So? Some Chapters have numbers that are greater than the Codex standard. That's neither here nor there, though; either way, the _average_ Chapter has a potential fighting force exceeding 1,000 Astartes (roughly 1,100-1,200 including all officers, supernumeraries, etc.).



> Sure if we are to accept 20% of the crap about marines then theoretically a decent chapter like the space wolves would wipe us out, but really do you think a splinter chapter without a battle cruiser could?


First, way to try to change the topic! :biggrin:

Second, and as stated above, all Chapters have a fleet. A Strike Cruiser is needed for every Company of 100 Astartes. So even a half-strength Chapter would have five or more Strike Cruisers, each of which would be able to bomb North America back to the metaphorical Stone Age within a day or three.



> Here is another annoying aspect about this thread are we talking the strongest or the weakest chapter. Or are all the best marines attacking a pointless backwater world. Is it a war of genocidal intent or are they a exploratory force?


See above, again. You keep focusing on the Astartes, while ignoring what actually makes them so powerful. Astartes aren't defined by their skill at hand-to-hand combat, their bolters or their power armour. They are ideologically fanatical shock-troops who rely on the overwhelming firepower of their fleets to breach planetary and orbital defenses and subsequently perform surgical strikes meant to bring the planet below to capitulation. That's what they do.

_If they don't feel like they accomplish the above,_ then *they burn the planet from orbit*.

You really need to reconcile with basic facts like that (not to mention what kind of ships they have, how many ships they have, and what they're capable of) before you argue as to what they can or cannot do, what they will or will not do, etc.

And man, I sure love it when people describe everything they don't agree with as "idiotic", "annoying", etc. Especially when they sound like they _simply don't understand_ said concepts to begin with.



> I admit that I have not been posting the most accurate of statements, but how the hell can I when talking about a fictional race that we know no hard facts about.


It's really quite simple. First, get an accurate idea of what we, on Earth, possess... and what we can and cannot do with it. For instance: we need satellites to employ our most advanced weapons and to effectively communicate; we cannot wage space warfare; our fighter jets can only fly for approximately 2-3 hours before they need to re-fuel; there is a very limited number of places where they can refuel at. These are all very basic concepts.

Then, you compare this not to theoretical concepts, but to what the 40k milieu states as a *fact*. For instance, fact: all Chapters have a number of spaceships, each of which is capable of leveling a city with a salvo or two of its bombardment cannon. Is this made up fiction? Of course. But for the sake of this discussion, it has to be accepted. Otherwise, why are you even engaging in this conversation? 

Once you consider this basic fact, uninformed and irrelevant questions like "well, how would a thousand Astartes fight a million of our soldiers" become irrelevant... since common sense dictates that, *within a few days,* _our civilization would be unable to wage modern warfare._

At that point, debates like the one hailene and I had earlier, regarding armor from the future versus armor for today, also become irrelevant--and thus, by extension, are your subsequent questions... Abrams main battle tank versus Land Raider, for instance. Who cares? They'll never fight against one another--at least not in meaningful numbers.



> ... can a thermonuclear bunker buster kill a imperial ship if it hits its command deck or its warp drive? I have no damn idea, and you bloody well know I don't and you don't either.


No, which is why I focus on *facts* that preclude said question to begin with, instead. Facts like, "it takes an ICBM a certain amount of time to make it from surface to orbit, and, between the time of launch and the time of impact, a starship in orbit has enough time to shoot it down". And that's assuming our enemies from the future never destroyed the satellites the ICBM needs *just to be used effectively.*



> So like any what if scenario involving fiction we will never reach a answer because its fiction you can make shit up to counter hard fact, and I lack the advanced scientific knowledge to even speculate on half of the wonky shit in 40k.


In fact, we _can_ reach an answer. It's no different than the theoretical scenario of a Feudal Age walled city trying to withstand an attack by the 21st century US armed forces. Sure, you can argue whether ten thousand swordsmen would or would not be able to kill a platoon of 40 US infantrymen... but that would be _missing the point,_ which is that *the B-52 bomber flying at 25,000 feet or higher would level said city to dust within an hour.*

But you consistently wish to ignore concepts like that, and--no offense intended--I'm getting the feeling that this has less to do with arriving at a common sense consensus and more with you _just wanting to be right._



> I do apologies for getting upset, but damn I am getting sick of fiction always beating real life soldiers and heroes, ...


Get a grip, dude. *It's fiction from forty thousand years in the future.* It's not like I'm saying King Arthur and Robin Hood successfully tag teamed to beat on the US Marine Corps using a sword, a bow, and witty banter. 



> In short ...


Wait, I thought you gave up. :grin:



> ... and magically can detect were everything on a planet is, and know more about the worlds military then the people that live their.


I'll ignore the bitter blah-blah preceding this to answer something approximating a fair question.

Wait, no. You know what? I'll answer it with some questions of my own. You do know that our humble technology allows us to spy on individual people walking around in the middle of nowhere simply with airplanes with highly sophisticated cameras, right? And that they in turn don't hold a candle to what our satellites can pick up, magnify, and make into imagery that we in turn use to plan and wage wars, right?

So how exactly is it that you find it so hard to believe that *spaceships from the future* sitting in orbit would somehow have a tough time finding military bases *the size of small cities*? When we can pick up five guys walking from Pakistan through remote mountain passes, what makes you think that *spaceships from the future* are unlikely to pick up a squadron of jets or a brigade of tanks from rolling out? 

Honestly, if you used even a fraction of the effort you've put toward dismissing the other side's arguments to simply engaging in objective thought, this discussion would probably be more interesting (and maybe fun) for everyone involved.

Have a nice day.

P.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

I just thought I'd make a list of the main points shown thus far on both sides of the argument, as it's getting a bit jumbled and hard to follow.

1. Vs. IG, we would stand a chance, however if they were using Astartes, it would be extremely difficult for us.
2. They would have orbital supremacy but no necessarily air supremacy.
3. They would be able to strike anywhere at anythime unchallenged.
4. Their weapons systems are superior to ours, meaning that we would have to employ tactics involving Guerrilla and Hit and Run.
5. Astartes can be killed by conventional weapons, however not by the standard rifle. Meaning we would have to employ stronger weaponry (i.e. tanks, planes, etc), to defeat them.
6. A bombardment would preceed the invasion, meening that most, but not all, of our military bases could be destroyed.


I think it boils down to the fact that the air/orbital war is lost, but we could win the land war if we made fast air raids comprised of anti-armour and shock weaponry. (i.e. napalm, nuclear, anti-armour missles, etc.). We could simply hide out underground launching these kinds of raids (effectively destroying their strike parties) until the time came when they decided we were too annoying and Exterminatus-ed the planet.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Cyleune said:


> I just thought I'd make a list of the main points shown thus far on both sides of the argument, as it's getting a bit jumbled and hard to follow.
> 
> 1. Vs. IG, we would stand a chance, ...


Why? How do you think the Imperial Guard would get here? With spaceships, of course... spaceships capable of burning entire planets.



> 2. They would have orbital supremacy but no necessarily air supremacy.


In fact, we wouldn't even have air forces operational following orbital bombardment.



> 5. Astartes can be killed by conventional weapons, however not by the standard rifle. Meaning we would have to employ stronger weaponry (i.e. tanks, planes, etc), to defeat them.


Assets we wouldn't even have following orbital bombardment...



> 6. A bombardment would preceed the invasion, meening that most, but not all, of our military bases could be destroyed.


Why? Because they would just stop without needing to?



> I think it boils down to the fact that the air/orbital war is lost, but we could win the land war if we made fast air raids comprised of anti-armour and shock weaponry. (i.e. napalm, nuclear, anti-armour missles, etc.).


None of these would be available after orbital bombardment. No GPS, no air bases to support air craft, etc.



> We could simply hide out underground launching these kinds of raids ...


Where? And I mean this in regards to the supposed ragged, decimated parties launching these raids, since it's not like we have "underground" bases to hide jets, tanks, and helicopters at.


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

I must strongly agree with Mr. Phoebus here, if the Imperial came here and started fighting us, we'd get our asses handed to us in the first 72 hours. Even if it was the just the Imperial Guard and they only preformed a limited orbital barrage before landing ground forces, we'd still be pretty screwed. We joke that the IG have only flashlights and t-shirts but those weapons are better than the normal gear of a typical army soldier. They have a name for normal bullet type guns, stub weapons. And they sit below lasguns on the ranged weapon ladder. And that's no even touching their heavy weapons, armor and aircraft.

And actually, I believe that they've already had a what if Space Marines fought a world at our current level and if that was any indication, it wouldn't go well for us.

Finally, I should point out that it's unlikely that the Imperium would just come to us and start shooting. Chances are that either a Rogue Trader or an Explorator Fleet would be the ones to find us. A Rogue Trader would likely reveal himself rather boldly, landing in the largest city which he would naturally assume to be the capital and seek to make a profit off us while the leaders of the Explorator Fleet would access the solar system for resources and any potential lost tech before making contact with us. Now they could see our work on robotics and AI as dangerous and heretical, potentially leading to conflict. But let's face it, if the Imperium suddenly descended from space, would the major governments try to fight against them? Against humans that have mastered interstellar space travel? People are forgetting that we are presented with the Imperium and the 40k galaxy as a whole but that wouldn't be the case if they came to us. Most humans spend all their lives on their homeworlds with little idea of other worlds beyond Imperial propaganda. Also, not all Imperial worlds are led by uncaring or even brutal lords and home to repressed and downtrodden masses. There are plenty of worlds where the people live quite comfortably. They just don't get much attention because of the grim dark tone of 40k.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

I always assumed that IG armor was equal to the out of date flak vests from Vietnam.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Looking at the pictures, IG armor appears to be a set of solid-plate, partial body armor. That is, it's as solid as the helmet worn... and thus should provide protection against the same weapons/effects as the helmet.

By contrast, our flak armor was a "soft" vest. It provided protection against shrapnel, but none against small arms. Our helmets, on the other hand, were made from steel, and theoretically could provide some protection from rifle-fired bullets.

Then again, it could be that, in the far future, even the kind of solid body armor the Guard uses is really only proof against flak and shrapnel (as compared to actual lasguns, bolters, etc.)... hence the name.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

I think that the 'Flak' part of Flak armour likely refers to the cloth part of the uniforms, which are likely only proof against shrapnel and very small caliber weapons. Looking at rules for a moment (I know, I know rules =/= fluff but still) a lasgun has AP-nothing while flak armour provides a 5+ save meaning that a soldier hit by such a weapon (like our auto weapons) would have roughly a 1/3 chance of being instantly incapacitated. Given that only the body is protected by the armour it seams perfectly reasonable to me that this is almost completely bulletproof and that damage is generally done on the softer areas. This is further supported in my mind by the fact that Carapace armour is effectively just more of the battle-plate sections and not an actually different material.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Fairly sure in the Ghosts book 'Only in Death' which i read quite recently, it mentioned Rawnes(i think it was Rawne anyway) front plate cracking in half from a las round. Although in ever other case i've read of the Ghosts being shot in the chest, the armour generally does nothing at all. Infact that shot on Rawne might have even been mentioned as a deflected shot in the first place.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

@ Phoebus
You say we won't have any bases remaining after the barrage but you fail to provide a reason. We have underground bases of all sorts that are proof against nuclear war. You say they will be destroyed but you don't realize that even with the Imperium's technology that some of them are buried meters in the Earth and will survive until an Exterminatus comes.

Like Akatsuki pointed out, we'd be able to hold our own for a while but would eventually be overrun due to numbers, not exactly tech.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Those underground complexes are all very well and good for protection. But as far as surviving an invasion goes, they aren't going to do alot. Those complexes are all pretty small and aren't designed to hide entire armies in secret within their depths. They also all rely on satelites and comms to get a picture and idea of whats happening outside, something which won't exist anymore. I'm not sure what people actually think these underground complexes are, people seem to be under the impression we could hide entire regiments down there and launch Terminator post-skynet style attacks from them afterwards, something that simply isn't the case.

I'm in the military and trust me, we would be screwed. Without air superiority we are doomed, we need it desperatly to even being to rapidly deploy troops anywhere along with satelite comms to co-ordinate. I can't even begin to think how we would co-oridnate any kind of counter-attack without propper comms in place. And seriously, we don't have any secret underground air force bases where our aircraft could hide either. And jut the ammo side of things aswell. They will target our ammo dumps, and once they do, we're in alot of trouble. Unlike the films and tv, we don't carry infinite amounts of ammo around with us, and its a logistical pain in the arse to move the stuff anywhere.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

Never said they were fortresses  just that some of us could hole up in there. 

I'm in the military too and we actually do have underground bases that can store planes. 

As for the world around us, yes, we wouldn't be able to see, but thats what God gave us legs and eyes for, so we could go have a look-see at our surroundings.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Hide them? Perhaps, actually launch raids from. No. And even if any of them could, that would be the quickest way to get them found out by the Imperium and bombed to hell and back.

Sure you can go outside and have a look with your eyes, but that's really not going to help when you are being annhilated across the globe by an enemy who can deploy anywhere in the world in no time at all and withdraw just as fast.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

> Hide them? Perhaps, actually launch raids from. No. And even if any of them could, that would be the quickest way to get them found out by the Imperium and bombed to hell and back.


That is true, but explain movies where Rebels have bases and are clearly able to be detected but for some reason aren't...ahem, Star Wars anyone? Or Terminator? 

Crap just shut down my own argument there the bases were found....



> Sure you can go outside and have a look with your eyes, but that's really not going to help when you are being annhilated across the globe by an enemy who can deploy anywhere in the world in no time at all and withdraw just as fast.


That for some reason gave me a funny picture of some Scout dude walking around and all of a sudden a squad of Termies deep strike all around him.   

I concur, you have won this argument, well fought.


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

Cyleune said:


> @ Phoebus
> You say we won't have any bases remaining after the barrage but you fail to provide a reason. We have underground bases of all sorts that are proof against nuclear war. You say they will be destroyed but you don't realize that even with the Imperium's technology that some of them are buried meters in the Earth and will survive until an Exterminatus comes.
> 
> Like Akatsuki pointed out, we'd be able to hold our own for a while but would eventually be overrun due to numbers, not exactly tech.


No, it would be more by tech as well as shock and awe that would do us in. I don't know why everyone is obsessed with the whole orbital bombardment and how bad it will be for us while completely ignoring the obvious, they are technologically superior to us. The truth is that they don't need to wipe out military installations before they land. In fact, their initial bombardment would be against several major cities, wiping them out. Let's face it, that would scare the hell out of us. Sure, we would try launching nukes at them but Imperial warships have turret defenses specifically for that purpose. Maybe we'd get lucky and one would be detonated close enough to damage a ship, after that they're not going to take any chances and will immediately shoot down anymore as soon as they detected them.

As to an insurgency, it would be successful for a time, depending on whether they started during the brief fighting or after the bulk of the Imperial forces left. But it would either eventually fall or become a breeding ground for worse things. Ultimately, we'd be brought into the fold.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Cyleune said:


> @ Phoebus
> You say we won't have any bases remaining after the barrage but you fail to provide a reason.


Sure I did. Multiple times. See again, below.



> We have underground bases of all sorts that are proof against nuclear war.
> ...
> I'm in the military too and we actually do have underground bases that can store planes.


What bases are those? Not nuclear weapon silos, which are hardly proof to our own weaponry, mind you, but air bases and army posts.

Not that it matters. It's not the destruction of the jets that would render our air forces inoperable, but the destruction of our runways, which are decidedly above ground. Only a very few air strips are concealed underground--examples include an island air base used by the Hellenic Air Force and certain air strips used by the North Korean Air Force. And even those are not proof to their entrances being collapsed.



> You say they will be destroyed but you don't realize that even with the Imperium's technology that some of them are buried meters in the Earth and will survive until an Exterminatus comes.


Nah. We have 2,000lb bombs capable of penetrating multiple stories underground. Do you seriously expect me to believe that an Astartes Strike Cruiser's direct-fire bombardment cannon, which are capable of destroying kilometers-long armored starships from thousands of kilometers away or entire cities from orbit, will somehow fail to achieve comparable results?


----------

