Imperial Forces (40K) vs 1980s Soviets

[Connor MacLeod]

It really doesn't matter what scenario you choose really, there are simply too few troops in there to really take on a force that is vastly larger - unless "support" means they get NATO military forces cooperating, in which case they simply become a possible component in the larger force. By themselves, they'd lose by simple attrition disregarding all other possible factors.

This is only complicated by the fact that you have to be more specific about the kinds of tanks - Russes have been argued to be totally simplistic (lacking any sort of computer or electronic targeting systems, although even the IA books have given them some form of such.) to something packing sensors, mind links to the computer, nuclear powerplants, and capable of pulling 70 kph or more off road (Ah, the days of 2nd edition) and having some form of ET/ETC cannon (at least thats what I inferred from some 2nd edition sources..I dont think it was a railgun...)

Lascannons would be my ideal weapon in most cases - an 8 MJ lascannon operating as some sort of "pulse-train" blaster might be able to punch through up to a meter or so of armor-grade steel depending on exact parameters. I imagine their krak munitions (shaped charge/directed blast munitions of varying types, which seem to include DEW-like effects in some cases distinct from what melta charges do.) probably do the same. They don't seem to favor KEPs as much as modern forces do, saving those for high-end or specialist vehicles (like the Vanquisher, although there's more to the Vanquisher than saboted ammo.)

[Shroom Man 777]

Why would you want an anti-tank weapon that's restricted to within horizon/visual range when the Imperium has other anti-tank weapons that can strike beyond ballistic ranges? Is it for the megajoules?

[Simon_Jester]

If you're not firing guided missiles smart enough to hit their targets without being aimed by the gunner, effective targeting of antitank weapons is limited to line of sight anyway.

Unless, of course, we get into massively complicated systems of super-networked warfare that may be the future of Earthly militaries, but bear no resemblance to the 40k universe...

[Shroom Man 777]

Huge easily-targetable low-mobility platforms with strictly sub-BVR weaponries that move very slow... does not sound like a good combination. What's to stop the enemy from just not meeting them at all? They could be placed in a hull-down whatever position to serve as well fortified entrenched anti-tank things, but they'd end up getting bombed or artilleried if they stay static.

[Simon_Jester]

Here, your problem is with the platform, not the weapon- the lascannon's only flaw is that it isn't a howitzer, and most other antitank weapons aren't either. It would work fine on a tank that didn't have issues with speed or whatever.

Remember, all Connor said, and all I'm talking about, is that a lascannon is a pretty good weapon. It's desirable for this purpose, because it's pretty good at killing tanks out to the horizon with minimal complications in terms of ammo, difficulty of aiming, recoil, and so on. That doesn't make it, or the vehicle it fits on, perfect.

[Shroom Man 777]

The weapon's effectiveness is totally dependent on the said effectiveness of the platform too, you know. If the platform blows... the weapon will be for naught. It's like putting YAL on a zeppelin or something. Or putting those awesome nukes in a McNamara-plane instead of an XB-70. A Rheinmetall 120mm gun is only that effective because it's on some of the most modern mobile military machines meandering on the planet, etc.

I get your point. It would be the ideal weapon, even if its platforms hamstring/compromise/diminish it's effectiveness, as mounting it on a superior platform would result in absolute killfuck, etc.

[Ryan Thunder]

I think the lascannon may be the reason the Leman Russ is so damned tall compared to modern tank platforms. Increased distance to the horizon and all that stuff.

[Connor MacLeod]

Remember that a Russ also is alot taller than a RL tank. That CAN be quite an obvious disadvantage, as Shep shows, but it also means that your effective LOS is considerably longer. Nothing is going to be truly, absolutely perfect, and there will be tradeoffs of one kind or another. I'm not saying that the LR height is an inherent advantage, but it depends.

Also think of how modern MBTs are designed. They achieve their lower overall height by spreading the tank out much wider on the ground (which has other advantages, like with ground pressure I believe) but this makes them MUCH wider from above. This could be problems in the case of tracking and targeting via orbital bombardment, fighter attacks, etc. (It's debatable whther the Imperium has that kind of accuracy, but its quite likely other races, like the Eldar or Tau, would.. and you dont want your tanks to be any bigger a target than you need to from anything from the sky.)

Most proposed over the horizon tank munitions I remember are all guided as well, and its rather harder to argue the LR has guided munitions (thanks to Forge world, but then again HK missiles and support sentinels with guided missiles are fairly common too soo...)

Note that its possible they can target beyond the horizon with tank shells - like I said before some sources put their auspex capability at 10-20 km range for some vehicles, which is CONSIDERABLY beyond horizon (whether it is active or passive, we dont know. Probably passive.) It wouldnt neccesarily be super-accurate but... *shrugs* On the other hand, 15-20 km gives it forgeworld Earthshaker stats so that creates all other issues...*shrugs*

In LOS terms the Russe's hight gives it a potential 6-7 km range, and we know the gun shell can move at 1500-2000 m/s (Honour guard describes conqueror shells as "hyper velocity", which I take to mean they move at least 1-1.5 km/s, and Gunheads has a battle cannon shell crossing ~2 km or so in about a second or so.) This would, of course, assume fairly good targeting systems, which is again up in the air, as well as other assumptions (for those who ask "why don't they engage at this range" because they don't, I can only assume the random targeting system issue, target type and durability, etc. all come into play at different points.) I'd actually buy the long range being more likely with lascannon than battle cannon myself, but we do know tank guns can reach out to at least 4-5 km (Necropolis) and 1 km is considered point blank range (again Necropolis.) And battle cannons have at least a 2-3 km range by various sources (Honour Guard, Hammer of Daemons, Assault on Black Reach, Gunheads, etc.)

[Simon_Jester]

The weapon's effectiveness is totally dependent on the said effectiveness of the platform too, you know. If the platform blows... the weapon will be for naught. It's like putting YAL on a zeppelin or something. Or putting those awesome nukes in a McNamara-plane instead of an XB-70. A Rheinmetall 120mm gun is only that effective because it's on some of the most modern mobile military machines meandering on the planet, etc.

Yeah, then it all goes back to the question of the quality of the Russ as a platform- what are its capabilities? As Connor said before, those are really uncertain and in flux because different authors choose to represent the tank differently, and because 40k tank regiments may be drawn from different worlds all over the Imperium with different amounts of technology and technical literacy. Or as he said:

"This is only complicated by the fact that you have to be more specific about the kinds of tanks - Russes have been argued to be totally simplistic (lacking any sort of computer or electronic targeting systems, although even the IA books have given them some form of such.) to something packing sensors, mind links to the computer, nuclear powerplants, and capable of pulling 70 kph or more off road (Ah, the days of 2nd edition) and having some form of ET/ETC cannon (at least thats what I inferred from some 2nd edition sources..I dont think it was a railgun...)"

So whether the Russ is a fast, agile tank, or a slow, clumsy tank... that depends. It's hard if not impossible to answer formally. And the stats published in some of the reference books don't fit well with other depictions- heck, I've heard it suggested that they were put in there intentionally by people with actual military experience, just to screw with attempts at versus debates by throwing in "what do you MEAN it only drives at speed X!?"

I think the lascannon may be the reason the Leman Russ is so damned tall compared to modern tank platforms. Increased distance to the horizon and all that stuff.

That doesn't make a lot of sense- unless terrain is perfectly flat, the curvature of the Earth has less to do with horizon distance than things like hills do. Also, the 'generic' Leman Russ has the laser cannon in the hull and a large-caliber gun in the turret.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hmm... it would actually make more sense to put the laser on top and the gun in the body, like an S-tank with a laser on top, etc.

I can totally buy Maerius-pattern awesome Ruses killing the crap out of all sorts of modern-day opposition, while shitworld-pattern tanks get killfucked by the Russkies.

But yeah, like SW versus Soviet Russia, the Russkies are totally gonna make this hurt. And, well, it's more amusing than the curbstomp postulated by a lot of the OPs of a lot of recent shit-threads.

Connor:

The tank and arty's own auspex ranges might not be as important if you factor in spotter teams, which have been alluded to in the Cain stories. It would also be pretty cool if skull probes act in a spotter function as, well, grimdark UAVs.

[Simon_Jester]

Spotters work OK for high explosive, but not so well for killing tanks- the tanks are mobile and can only be damaged by direct hits, so it's harder for a spotter to say "adjust your aim forty meters left" or something like that and have the gunner hit the target.

[Shroom Man 777]

Spotters could lase the targets. You might not do direct hits, but you could also rain down mines. And, heck, spotters worked fine for Skorpionok.

[Simon_Jester]

Laser designation, it's a great idea- but, for various reasons, 40k doesn't use all that much in the way of guided munitions. Some are thematic, some are that they really do have to fight enemies who have such huge numbers and stuff that they need to expend enormous amounts of ammunition and can't afford high costs per shot fired against most of the stuff they fight. Although it's probably the thematic reasons that dominate. 40k armies aren't supposed to be these hypermobile net-centric guided-bomb-down-your-chimney WE USE PRECISION militaries.

The Transforminators thing was with air support- the spotters were telling planes "yeah, the target is in this box, you see it? Good. Kill it."

[Shroom Man 777]

OP did specify Valkyrie support. Wait, is this scenario entirely ground only? No Frogfoots, etc? Bah.

Okay, spotters might not be so hot against moving tanks, but how about artillery on artillery? Forget the tanks. How would their artillery fare against Russkie light units, troops and BMPs, etc? Aside from Basiliks, what other arty do they have?

[Srelex]

OP did specify Valkyrie support. Wait, is this scenario entirely ground only? No Frogfoots, etc? Bah.

Okay, spotters might not be so hot against moving tanks, but how about artillery on artillery? Forget the tanks. How would their artillery fare against Russkie light units, troops and BMPs, etc? Aside from Basiliks, what other arty do they have?

They have the Medusa, the Manticore, and an actual MRLS equivalent in the form of the Praetor.

[Connor MacLeod]

So whether the Russ is a fast, agile tank, or a slow, clumsy tank... that depends. It's hard if not impossible to answer formally. And the stats published in some of the reference books don't fit well with other depictions- heck, I've heard it suggested that they were put in there intentionally by people with actual military experience, just to screw with attempts at versus debates by throwing in "what do you MEAN it only drives at speed X!?"

Really? That's a new one to me. Where did you hear that? I wouldn't believe it though because some of the Forge World stuff, at least to my understanding of things, comes from other sources or even predate them (Chapter approved compilations, Infero Magazine, etc. all had similar stats which are contemporary with or predate Forge world's current iteration.) Moreover, the FW people are mostly modellers and military history buffs as I have gathered it. They write the fluff to caputre the "thematic" crap but also to novellize teh game mechanics (Taros for example had to be "balanced" somehow to make it fair for the tau side, like in game.) - you can't really ignore either in-universe, and the stats can be hilariously inconsistent at times, but that's hardly malicious.

Out of universe its just an "author changing his/her/its mind and view" sort of thing - it happens alot in most shared universe sci fi including 40K. In universe we just chalk it up to the schizophrenic and inconsistnet way technology and logistics are handled across the Imperium. The most "consistent" you get is at the sector level, but that's largely because Sectors are self-contained islands of humanity. Beyond that is the fucked up, muddled morass of 40K we know and love.

But for this debate - and virtually any other 40K debate - you have to be specific on what kind of gear the Imperium has, and how it performs, in order to decide what kind of chance it has. Hell you even need to decide what kind of officer might be in cahrge, since you could have all the gear you need, and you might still end up with someone who thinks Zapp Brannigan had the right idea (especially if the commanding officer is from a Krieg regiment - who are known to have commissars around as a voice of reason.)

Laser designation, it's a great idea- but, for various reasons, 40k doesn't use all that much in the way of guided munitions. Some are thematic, some are that they really do have to fight enemies who have such huge numbers and stuff that they need to expend enormous amounts of ammunition and can't afford high costs per shot fired against most of the stuff they fight. Although it's probably the thematic reasons that dominate. 40k armies aren't supposed to be these hypermobile net-centric guided-bomb-down-your-chimney WE USE PRECISION militaries.

I've seen some sources where its used (Volpone use it in the Sabbat Worlds Anthology for example) and they use beacons and targeting lasers for orbital bombardmehnt (The naval liasons at least have. 13th Legion I bleieve is one example there) I think its implied some sorts of targeters are "laser designators' or laser guidance, and evne tanks have it.. so it exists. The problem is that its not standardized, or it may be used in some ways but they may not think to use it others for whatever reason, etc.

I mean if you REALLY want an outlier, there's a case in Tactica Imperialis where a Basilisk battery was requested to call in a bombardment on a CSM drop pod locale from over 100 km away. Maybe they had satellite or orbital surivellance, or maybe the troopers doing the call in had auspex/pict cam data they could relay over the vox to the target.. or maybe the Basilisks had targeting cogitators like the ones in STorm of Iron...

The best attitude I can come up for how the Imperium does things is "they expect for and plan the worst" coupled with "the munitorum is full of conservative, bureacratic assholes who resent every munition and vehicle they have to let go of." because it messes with their neat orderly bureaucratic universe, unless other factors get involved. (Like the local Chapter Master holding a figurati9ve or literal blade to their neck because they need those resources for the forces they are in command of.) This also means, however, that unless you're very explicit you can get bogged down in arguments over whether the Imperium uses which piece of technology and how often and what represents the "standard" configuration, and those debates as a rule go nowhere. I'm still waiting for someone like Gunhead to show up and start commenting on how much IG Gear and Russes suck

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor:

The tank and arty's own auspex ranges might not be as important if you factor in spotter teams, which have been alluded to in the Cain stories. It would also be pretty cool if skull probes act in a spotter function as, well, grimdark UAVs.

True, but the usual argument I recall about this is "it depends on how the spotter is equipped." They might just be a guy with a map and a comm giving in coordinates to the bombardment forces rather than something more exotic (like they do for orbital bombardment.) Hell, I can think of a few cases where that was done (fifteen hours comes to mind.)

And yes there are Valkyries and other gunships and they might provide some spotting support, but I suspect they'd be better put as striking against tanks (especially if they're packing Vendetta Valkyries, what with the six lascannons and all..)

That said, what about Soviet Air support? That isn't, I suspect, going to be sitting idle. Nor is their own aritllery. and this just gets back again to how grossly outnumbered they are. They have what 100 tanks or so, 5000 men (onyl some of which, I suspect, are mechanized). They actually are, I suspect, heavier on Valkyires (I'd have to check the TO&Es in IA3 and shit to double check) which have to be around 150-200, plus however many vultures, so they're massively in favor of air support. But Even if al lthe Cadians were mechanised (which I think the revision may have meant-not sure) they're still not numerous enough to take the Soviet forces head on. They're still very light in artillery, and I dread to think how many tanks the soviet 8th army would have (nevermind the whole Warsaw Pact)

If the Imperial forces had some hefty sensors and good comms ability (which means the ability to relay visual/sensor data as well as audio) they *might* be able to do something over time, especially if their engine performance is better than IA stats (again up for debate.) But this isn't going to be like a Tom Clancy novel, and there are lots of ways I can think of the Imperial forces fucking up and losing this.

Even worse they don't even have to be totally destroyed to lose this. Their numerical inferiority makes it harder for them to stop the Soviets on the offensive so if the Soviets pinned them in place with some part of their force, the rest could probably move by and take the Fulda gap even if the 40K forces totally wipe out the portion of the soviet army diverted to hold them.

[Simon_Jester]

So whether the Russ is a fast, agile tank, or a slow, clumsy tank... that depends. It's hard if not impossible to answer formally. And the stats published in some of the reference books don't fit well with other depictions- heck, I've heard it suggested that they were put in there intentionally by people with actual military experience, just to screw with attempts at versus debates by throwing in "what do you MEAN it only drives at speed X!?"

Really? That's a new one to me. Where did you hear that?

If it wasn't you who mentioned it, I think it was ECR. I'd have to dig to find it, but it's very much hearsay.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone with a perverse sense of humor deliberately described the Russ as having less armor than a T-72 and lower overland speed than a Centurion...

True, but the usual argument I recall about this is "it depends on how the spotter is equipped." They might just be a guy with a map and a comm giving in coordinates to the bombardment forces rather than something more exotic (like they do for orbital bombardment.) Hell, I can think of a few cases where that was done (fifteen hours comes to mind.)

And yes there are Valkyries and other gunships and they might provide some spotting support, but I suspect they'd be better put as striking against tanks (especially if they're packing Vendetta Valkyries, what with the six lascannons and all..)

Vendetta-variant Valkyries would be the mother of all airborne tank-hunters, in a modern context. Somewhere between the A-10 and helicopter gunships in that role, and likely better at it than either.

[Gunhead]

Based on typical force strengths from 1988 assessment of the threat 8th guards army would have: roughly 1000 MBTs with 40% - 50% being more modern T-64 and T-72 tanks rest being T-55 and T-62 tanks. Roughly 2000 IFVs, APCs of various types. 800 artillery pieces, mortars etc. 50000 troops. This assessment was done in 1988 but as far as I could tell troop and equipment numbers haven't really changed from early 1980s. If someone wants the typical force levels per individual division I can give them too. Above is based on typical armored and motorized division numbers and if someone has more accurate info please provide it.

-Gunhead

[Connor MacLeod]

So like I said. Massively outnumbered in tanks, and guns, and massively outnumbered in troops (although that is less significant than the sheer disparity in vehicles, methinks.)

The real issue then becomes what sort of air support and air defense the Russians have. If they get jets of any kind they can pretty much massacre the Valkyries/Vultures without problem. If they only have choppers or something it becomes stickier (armament, performance, etc. IIRC they have some pretty beefy helicopter gunships they used in Afgahnistatn for example.) If they hve any Surface to air missiles of any kind or Anti-aircraft weapons they might also be able to limit the danger (again numbers are an issue here.)

That said, the numerical disperity is still a problem from a terrain, tracking, and intel perspective. There's still lots of ways for them to fuck over the Imperium side even without totally destroying it (the Imperials can only be in so many places at once.)

[Gunhead]

The totally lopsided numerical advantage in tanks, IFVs, APCs and more importantly artillery assets for the russkies makes this an absolute nightmare for the Imp. guard. Each individual division has more than twice the number of artillery pieces and the total disparity is something like 1 to 10.
Russians would have a whole AA regiment which is roughly one AA battallion per Division. On top of that it's possible the 8th guards army would get separate AA batteries to cover vital logistics and C&C, but one AA regiment is an organic part of the 8th guards army which is the least they'd have by TOE.

-Gunhead

[Shroom Man 777]

How do Imperial Guard MANPADs equivalents fare against Russki Strelas and Iglas? We actually don't see much in the way of their MANPAD equivalents in the fluff, IIRC.

[NecronLord]

How do Imperial Guard MANPADs equivalents fare against Russki Strelas and Iglas? We actually don't see much in the way of their MANPAD equivalents in the fluff, IIRC.

It is likely just another version of their standard rocket launcher, if they even use a different one. And possibly man portable lascannons (which will probably be more dangerous to Soviet armour than the Russes).

[Black Admiral]

Guard missile launchers can be used as MANPADS; this is shown in Gunheads when they're used to shoot down Ork fighta-bommas.

[Shroom Man 777]

I meant anti-air weaponry. Using lasers, while powerful, is I dunno. A guy holding a huge ass lascannon trying to hit helicopters and planes? We don't see much in the way of infantry anti-air weapons in much of the fluff, do we?