Mobile Infantry (novel) versus 40K Space Marines

[Shadow6]

In the foreword, or the first page of the book, or something like that, there is a quote that has Rico talking about what, exactly, the power suit was. I can't recall the exact quote and I can't find my copy of the book (it's somewhere in the house...), nor can I find it online. Quite frustrating actually.

Anyway, he goes through and says things like "it's not a spaceship, but it can survive in vacuum", and "it's not a tank, but it can easily hold off a battalion of tanks" or SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Can anyone help me out here?

It is at the start of chapter seven and the exact passage is:

A suit isn't a space suit - although it can serve as one. It is not primarily armor - although the Knights of the Round Table were not armored as well as we are. It isn't a tank - but a single M.I. private could take on a squadron of those things and knock them off unassisted if anybody was silly enough to put tanks against M.I. A suit is not a ship but it can fly, a little - on the other hand neither spaceship nor atmosphere craft can fight against a man in a suit except by saturation bombing of the area he is in (like burning down a house to get one flea!). Contrariwise we can do many things that no ship - air, submersible, or space - can do.

Particularly of interest: one M.I. private, presumably with the least heavy weaponry if the practice of equipping more senior men and officers with the heavier weapons holds, is capable of defeating a 'squadron' of 'tanks'. Obviously we don't know what constitutes either of those in the ST-verse, but as a point of comparison, a US Armored Cavalry Squadron has around 40 each of M1 Abrams and M3 Bradleys.

Rico goes on to describe the operation of the suit in some detail, the only thing really of note is that airborne time for a typical bounce is a 'few seconds' and that they can manually extend the range of the jump. Later on Rico mentions that the suit has enough juice for a few hours of operation and while on Planet P between the internal reserves of the suit and supplies each man is carrying they are prepared to fight for 40 hours.

[Batman]

Four guys in a Humvee can kill a squadron of armour if they have enough TOWs today. The question is under what circumstances the MI can do so. Given that we have manportable AT weapons today and MI have a definite resilience, strength, and mobility advantage over modern day infantry I can see them beating tanks in, say, an urban environment (as infantry can do so today).
For them to make tanks obsolete requires to either a single MI being the equal of a squadron of tanks on an open battlefield (which again raises the question of why they don't use the technology to make more formidable tanks) or the Federation no longer fighting battles where tanks can bring their advantages over infantry into play.

[Connor MacLeod]

It's been a while since I read that book. Of course, that once more raises the question of if they can put the technology to easily kill a tank into an MI suit, why can't they put it in a tank several times over given the tank has a lot more room for them to put it in?

Probably because they don't feel they need to and haven't (at least from the context of the book) run up againts an enemy that actually requires it? Yes a tank or any other vehicle using MI tech would be better. So would a freaking robot. What does that actually change? Sometimes militaries (sci fi and sometimes real life) do things that seem stupid to everyone else but make sense to them (whether it actualyl is sensible is another story of course.).

The MI from the novels seemed to be optimized around having troops that were basically a rapid-deployed surgical strike force much akin to how Space Marines operate, backed up by starships that have firepower to blast anything from space or the air if the MI can't handle them on the ground. If they hold ground and air superiority, that should be fine. They run across something different, then they're in trouble.

The only advantage (given they have an identical technology base) the suit has over the tank is small size and agility. Firepower wise, everything the suit can do the tank can do massively better.

They're also alot easier to deploy from orbit than a tank would be. And easier to retrieve. And can go in some places a tank can't (mountains, cross bridges, etc.)

For what they are used for and often face in the books, they seemed to work just fine. That doesn't mean they're a super duper REPLACE COMBINED ARMS WARFARE option.

[Connor MacLeod]

How good is marine armor supposed to hold up to Anti Tank weapons? Obviously MI firepower is unknown, but according to the novel they have "made tanks obsolete", so they can at the very least be expected to be deploying weapons capable of busting 1950's era tanks with ease.

The fact that in this setting lasguns (which are quite nasty compared to 20th century small arms) have replaced basic infantry rifles while bolters (which are even nastier) have replaced heavy machine guns, and that armored vehicles remain functionally immune to these threats, suggests that tank armor is considerably stronger than it is today, but I'm not sure by how great a margin.

SM armor is unlikely to be able to stand up to a modern anti tank round (kinetic kill or shaped charge) at least in penetration. Shaped charges may or may not be lethal depending on where they hit and how large a charge we talk. Any tank grade kinetic kill projectile ought to do it (autocannon can kill Marines, at least the larger calibres can)

I'd guess anything smaller than 25-30mm is probably unlikely to kill the marine unless it incorporates some focused explosive effect of some kind.

[Serafina]

Note that lasguns might be particulary nasty against flesh and can create small explosions when hitting concrete and similar materials, one of the main reasons why they have replaced ballistic firearms is logistics - they have vastly superior ammo capacities and storage (they are rechargabe), they are apparently very easy to maintain and are quite robust (probably because they lack moving parts) and are not more complicated to mass produce.

They are certainly more nasty than normal ballistic small arms, but they are not that superior. They certainly can be, but the normal IG-lasgun is made for resilience and a large ammo capacity rather than for single devastating hits.

As far as Space Marine armor goes, while the material itself is very penetration restiant, they don't profit from angled armor and it's not made to resist anti-tank weapons (that's what Terminator armor is for). It's optimized against small arms and other squad-support weapons - for 40K that goes up to Heavy Bolters and Multilasers. Both can rip light tanks to shreds and are pretty much overkill against normal humans (read: they will be torn apart one way or the other).

At any rate, you need either a large volume of heavy anti-infantry firepower or anti-tank weaponery to really harm a Space Marine. Overwhelming numbers can do the trick since the armor is partially ablative and has it's weaker points, but i doubt the MI could muster those numbers.

[Simon_Jester]

Not in this scenario, where the numbers are broadly comparable, at any rate.

Another question is whether Marine bolters will be able to reliably break MI power suits. Their armor is tough, and can resist 20th century small arms quite reliably, I'm sure, but bolters are fairly nasty.

[adam_grif]

IIRC the arachnids were deploying particle beam weapons that destroyed MI troopers with ease... but no firepower figures mentioned.

[Connor MacLeod]

Note that lasguns might be particulary nasty against flesh and can create small explosions when hitting concrete and similar materials, one of the main reasons why they have replaced ballistic firearms is logistics - they have vastly superior ammo capacities and storage (they are rechargabe), they are apparently very easy to maintain and are quite robust (probably because they lack moving parts) and are not more complicated to mass produce.

Also:

- A massless beam, meanin no need to worry over wind or gravity

- little to no momentum (recoil) for the most part (any kick would come from other things, like emission of gas coolant)

- multiple setting allows a las weapon to function like an assault rifle, a battle rifle, or heavier depending on model or powerpack, which simplifies logistics. Can even act as a shotgun or flamethrower.

Tradeoffs can be (potentially) in energy loss ot the atmosphere/inefficiency (varies) and focus (not all lasguns are actually lasers, mind) limiting range and effectiveness (Explosive effects rely on focal point.) Laser pulses can be stopped or weakened by certain kinds of cover better than bullets (foliage, heavy mist or smoke that obscures vision, etc.).

And while for 40K they are not complicated weapons to build or design, they're still more complicated than stubbers or autoweapons, and power packs need a large and fairly advanced battery setup to work - I'd still say any slugthrower is still easier to make than a lasweapon.

They are certainly more nasty than normal ballistic small arms, but they are not that superior.

Nastiness depends on model, really, since some lasguns clearly are the same as projectile weapons. The main advantage is likely to be penetration (esp against certain materials like walls and such) and the consistency of wound patterns (an explosion/series of explosions will make a pretty consistent hole, while a bullet relies on mass/velocity, shape, and how it moves inside the target and interacts with the target to affect how it wounds - eg tumbling.)

They certainly can be, but the normal IG-lasgun is made for resilience and a large ammo capacity rather than for single devastating hits.

Depends. Some lasguns blow apart heads and chests the way bolters do, even without hotshot packs.

At any rate, you need either a large volume of heavy anti-infantry firepower or anti-tank weaponery to really harm a Space Marine. Overwhelming numbers can do the trick since the armor is partially ablative and has it's weaker points, but i doubt the MI could muster those numbers.

If they can amass the firepower to take out a tank, even a 40's-50's era tank they probably can take down an astartes in power armor without relying on excessive means (like super marksmanship or anything like that.)

[keen320]

IIRC in the starship troopers universe there was some kind of big (global?) war in the late 20th or early 21st century. This war more than likely still used tanks, so Rico is probably talking about tanks from that era or later, not the 40's-50's.

[Purple]

Another thing to note is that I see no reason why 40K weapons would be compatible in firepower with their 20th century counterparts. For example, I don't really think it makes sense to assume that 40K autocannons would be compatible to 20th century ones.

[Batman]

Err-I'm reasonably certain nobody's doing that? I very much suspect all the mentioning of 20th century firepower is so we can get a handle on what the Mobile Infantry can do, because for now, the only hard information we have on them is 1) they carry manportable low single figure KT nukes on occasion and 2)-um, that's it. We don't know their armour resilience against anything quantifiable, we don't know their firepower. In fact, we don't even know what their kit looks like, all we know is that they can carry flamers (firepower and ammo load unknown), Y-racks with grenades (range, accuracy, ammo load and yield unknown), the aforementioned Nukezookas, that they can jump a couple dozen to a couple hundred meters (I'm a little hazy there so if anybody knows better feel free to correct) and that the suit weighs about 2,000 pounds. That's essentially it.
We know there are at least three different configurations of the basic power suit, but we aren't given any actual information besides the basics about them so again, we essentially don't know much of anything about the capabilities of the MI on the ground.

[Purple]

Err-I'm reasonably certain nobody's doing that?

And if I may qoute to prove the contrary:

a 40's-50's era tank they probably can take down an astartes in power armor without relying on excessive means (like super marksmanship or anything like that.)

SM armor is unlikely to be able to stand up to a modern anti tank round (kinetic kill or shaped charge) at least in penetration. Shaped charges may or may not be lethal depending on where they hit and how large a charge we talk. Any tank grade kinetic kill projectile ought to do it (autocannon can kill Marines, at least the larger calibres can)

I'd guess anything smaller than 25-30mm is probably unlikely to kill the marine unless it incorporates some focused explosive effect of some kind.

The above posted makes the assumption that the 40K autocanon is comparable to the 20th century one by saying that since the 40K autocanon can kill Astartes a modern one would. I can probably find other examples as well, but I am to lazy right now.

Apologies if my interpretation is wrong.

I very much suspect all the mentioning of 20th century firepower is so we can get a handle on what the Mobile Infantry can do, because for now, the only hard information we have on them is 1) they carry manportable low single figure KT nukes on occasion and 2)-um, that's it.

Yet the posts essentially say that since a 40K weapon can kill Space Marines, so can a modern one.
And that is a grossly inaccurate (or at least unfounded) assumption. I just wanted to point that out.

[Connor MacLeod]

If purple thinks that a Space Marine can stand up to some sort of shoulder launched anti tank missile HEAT warhead or Saboted kinetic kill projectile, he is free to provide the evidence.

[FrankManic]

I'd give it to the MI. Here's my reasoning. The MI are depicted as a very modern, very mobile army built around mobility and overwhelming firepower. Lack of combined arms was mentioned. Each MI battlesuit is capable of jumping a few k at a time, they're armed with weapons ranging from short range flame throwers up to nukes, and they're apparently quite well armored.

The Space Marines are a Napoleonic army in a delicious and epic candy covered shell. While they are really, really cool, and really really epic, they're also really, really ridiculous. They're ponderously slow, fight in close order while totally ignoring cover, use weapons with a very limited range, and really only have one go-to tactic, ball's out frontal assault. Which is cool, it really is. But it's also suicidal.

Presumably the fight would go

1. MI bounce around until they locate Space Marines

2. MI Nuke the crap out of Space Marines from 5k away

Final casualties MI - a handful, Space Marines - 500

[Imperial Overlord]

The above posted makes the assumption that the 40K autocanon is comparable to the 20th century one by saying that since the 40K autocanon can kill Astartes a modern one would. I can probably find other examples as well, but I am to lazy right now.

An old man wearing power armour is shot with an autocannon in the Eisenhorn books and survives. He's not Astartes and neither is his armour. Eisenhorn leaves him buried in the rubble from the parts of the building that did not survive the autocannon. That doesn't mean you can't kill an Astartes with an autocannon, but it does mean it might take a lot of hits.

[adam_grif]

IIRC in the starship troopers universe there was some kind of big (global?) war in the late 20th or early 21st century. This war more than likely still used tanks, so Rico is probably talking about tanks from that era or later, not the 40's-50's.

Unfortunately, the book was published in 1959, so we can't assume that the future beyond 1959 in STverse happened the same way it did. It's reasonable to assume that if he said they can destroy tanks easily, then they can destroy tanks circa 1959 easily, because that is what tanks were like when he made the claim. They might be able to do better, but we can't assume that they can because Heinlein didn't have knowledge of what tanks would be like in the future.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it would be fair to at least project forward slightly, say to armor equivalent to the Leopard 1 or the M-60 Patton. Heinlein may not have foreseen the advent of Chobham armor or the like, but I very much doubt he would posit a future war in the late 20th century, decades after the time of writing, and assume zero innovation.

[adam_grif]

I think it would be fair to at least project forward slightly, say to armor equivalent to the Leopard 1 or the M-60 Patton. Heinlein may not have foreseen the advent of Chobham armor or the like, but I very much doubt he would posit a future war in the late 20th century, decades after the time of writing, and assume zero innovation.

He may well have seen a future where they were 1000x stronger than they were in real life, or one where there was zero improvement. Point is we can't know, and we should err on the side of caution when making assumptions about capabilities. Even 1959 tank armor should be more than average joe space marine in terms of RHA equivalence and stuff like that though, so I'm decently confident that they could take down typical 'rines with ease.

For tanks and terminators, bust out the instant sunrise.

[Purple]

I would like to see anyone here, anyone at all, provide evidence for the fallowing claim.

Even 1959 tank armor should be more than average joe space marine in terms of RHA equivalence and stuff like that though, so I'm decently confident that they could take down typical 'rines with ease.

Or in other words, there seems to be some idea that Space Marine armor is equal or worse to 1960's tanks.
So prove it.

[Cykeisme]

The above posted makes the assumption that the 40K autocanon is comparable to the 20th century one by saying that since the 40K autocanon can kill Astartes a modern one would. I can probably find other examples as well, but I am to lazy right now.

An old man wearing power armour is shot with an autocannon in the Eisenhorn books and survives. He's not Astartes and neither is his armour. Eisenhorn leaves him buried in the rubble from the parts of the building that did not survive the autocannon. That doesn't mean you can't kill an Astartes with an autocannon, but it does mean it might take a lot of hits.

Then there's the scene in Nightbringer where one of the Fourth Company sergeants crouches over a girl while an "ornithopter" (probably a helicopter) fires on him with prolonged automatic fire from an autocannon, and the back of his power armour completely resists the fire.

[adam_grif]

I would like to see anyone here, anyone at all, provide evidence for the fallowing claim.
...


So prove it.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Spess Maroons armor is as good or better than tank armor from the 1960's? What are the reasons we should think that it is that good?

Or is there some Vs Debate rule I wasn't aware of that stipulates that SM armor is always good enough to resist fire from a weapon until proven otherwise?

[Purple]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Spess Maroons armor is as good or better than tank armor from the 1960's? What are the reasons we should think that it is that good?

Or is there some Vs Debate rule I wasn't aware of that stipulates that SM armor is always good enough to resist fire from a weapon until proven otherwise?

The fact that they can stand up to small arms fire (and in universe this includes 50 caliber and even 1 inch (heavy bolter) mass reactive, armor penetrating rockets).

The above mentioned example. (1 post before yours).
The fact that the universe routinely uses mele weapons because ranged weapons have troubles penetrating armor.
The fact that we have instances of space marines being incredibly difficult to kill.
The fact that the universe is set some... 40 thousand years in the future (more or less).

And the fact that everyone in this thread seems to assume they are not.
So please, if you think that tank armor in the 60's is superior to Space Marine power armor, do prove it.
Since you people are the ones that made the assumption in the first place, it is up to you to provide evidence for it. Not the other way around.

I am simply calling you out to do so.


I am sure you won't fall into the old fallacy of simply saying: "Well you can't prove it the other way so I must be right."
Even if it makes no sense for you to be right.

[adam_grif]

The fact that they can stand up to small arms fire (and in universe this includes 50 caliber and even 1 inch (heavy bolter) mass reactive, armor penetrating rockets).

1" is = 25.4mm, and since it's damage is obviously being dealt by explosives, WWII tanks and earlier can resist that EASILY, unless it's some magical explosives that we don't know about.

The above mentioned example. (1 post before yours).

What is "an auto-cannon"? Is it 20mm? 30mm? 40mm? Was it firing AP rounds? APDS? HE? HEAT? What? Because 60's tanks can shrug off auto-cannons except on the soft top and bottom armor, and even then only if it's certain kinds of rounds.

The fact that the universe routinely uses mele weapons because ranged weapons have troubles penetrating armor.

That's an extremely weak inference. First of all, even lightweight Man Portable weapons can kill SM's sometimes, it's not like the enemy tanks are closing to melee distance because Astartes armor is too good. "Armor generally better than present day for the same mass" is all you can really draw from it, but not really even that in some cases. Many weapons it goes up against are exotic, like lasers. If, say, Lasguns were good enough to blow up an Abrams in one hit on standard setting, and SM armor can resist them well, that doesn't mean it can resist HELLFIRE missiles or 120mm APFSDS rounds, because the mechanisms by which they're being damaged is completely different in all three cases.

Secondly, the reason they close to melee distance so often is doctrinal more than anything. Lack of good artillery backing (that's the impression I got from other threads anyway), TT battles taking place at extremely close distances, drop-podding in frequently and so on. Armies that keep their distance and retreat when the enemy closes in on them can and do defeat the SM's on the field of battle.

The fact that we have instances of space marines being incredibly difficult to kill.

Unlike tanks? I'm open to your proposals for a metric by which we can quantify "being difficult to kill". James Bond is incredibly difficult to kill but I'm not prepared to accept his resistance to Rheinmetall smoothebo guns.

The fact that the universe is set some... 40 thousand years in the future (more or less).

I guess that means 40k beats every other popular SF universe since they all take place a few hundred years into the future max. And SW must be the worst because it takes place in the distant past.

[Purple]

1" is = 25.4mm, and since it's damage is obviously being dealt by explosives, WWII tanks and earlier can resist that EASILY, unless it's some magical explosives that we don't know about.

The damage is dealt by a penetrator and explosives.
The shell actually penetrates the target and than explodes inside. Or at least that are the design intentions.
They routinely fail to penetrate SM armor.

What is "an auto-cannon"? Is it 20mm? 30mm? 40mm? Was it firing AP rounds? APDS? HE? HEAT? What? Because 60's tanks can shrug off auto-cannons except on the soft top and bottom armor, and even then only if it's certain kinds of rounds.

And this is relevant how? Since there is no evidence comparing a modern autocanon to a 40K one there can be no connection made.

That's an extremely weak inference. First of all, even lightweight Man Portable weapons can kill SM's sometimes, it's not like the enemy tanks are closing to melee distance because Astartes armor is too good. "Armor generally better than present day for the same mass" is all you can really draw from it, but not really even that in some cases. Many weapons it goes up against are exotic, like lasers. If, say, Lasguns were good enough to blow up an Abrams in one hit on standard setting, and SM armor can resist them well, that doesn't mean it can resist HELLFIRE missiles or 120mm APFSDS rounds, because the mechanisms by which they're being damaged is completely different in all three cases.

That is true.

Unlike tanks? I'm open to your proposals for a metric by which we can quantify "being difficult to kill". James Bond is incredibly difficult to kill but I'm not prepared to accept his resistance to Rheinmetall smoothebo guns.

You knew what I meant, and you are taking advantage of me not going into detail to turn it into a mockery.

I guess that means 40k beats every other popular SF universe since they all take place a few hundred years into the future max. And SW must be the worst because it takes place in the distant past.

And why not? Considering that they can construct titans, and starships that would require materials that are far beyond us right now. Is it such a stretch to believe that they might use said materials to armor their troops?

Especially if said troops have their doctrine built around being heavily armored?


And even so, you have still failed to provide any real evidence.
All you do is point at the circumstances without giving any real factual data.

For example, the quoted post has produced no, I repeat no evidence.
All you did was refute my already weak points with equally weak points of your own.


If you want to provide evidence, all you have to do is pull out any quotes where Autocanons and other 40K weapons have shown comparable output in terms of damage to their 20th century counterparts. So either do that or concede.

[PainRack]

Sons of Fenris had Earthshaker artillery being unloaded on the Space Wolves and IG position, killing the Space marines. There were Guard survivors, however, the actual bombardment and its effects on the troops were dealt with off page.