Imperial Forces (40K) vs 1980s Soviets

[Connor MacLeod]

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?

Multi lazers on Chimeras. Remember in that one Cain novel where the no longer cute techpriest chick rigs up all the Valhallan weapons for anti-air?

[NecronLord]

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?

Which for helicopters at least, is a good idea. Machineguns against attack helicopters is a viable way to kill them, even for the likes of Iraqi Insurgents, if they're lucky enough to get past its armour.

With a lascannon, the element of luck is removed from the equation, and it's basically one hit one kill on a helo.

Remember, every craftworld Eldar tank can fly twice as fast than any helicopter in modern 2011 existence, let alone the 80s. Helo speed record (for a speed optimized unarmed streamlined non-military craft) is around 400 kph. In high altitude flight, an Eldar tank can clip along at 850 (p. 74, Chapter Approved the Second Book of the Astronomicon). It can also manage 180 kph at low altitude, too.

Not everything in 40K is 'lol-slow-and-clanky' and the Guard do manage to hit them.

We don't see much in the way of infantry anti-air weapons in much of the fluff, do we?

See above. When their basic shoulder launchers are able to engage them effectively, why would they bother to issue a separate version?

[Shroom Man 777]

Multi lazers on Chimeras. Remember in that one Cain novel where the no longer cute techpriest chick rigs up all the Valhallan weapons for anti-air?

I forgot about that. Was it special rigging or what?

]Which for helicopters at least, is a good idea. Machineguns against attack helicopters is a viable way to kill them, even for the likes of Iraqi Insurgents, if they're lucky enough to get past its armour.

With a lascannon, the element of luck is removed from the equation, and it's basically one hit one kill on a helo.

That's when the helicopter is close, and that requires the machinegun to fire quite a lot of bullets (not just to down the helo, but to actually hit it while it's moving in the sky). How accurate is the las cannon? How fast is its ROF? Cause, yes, it can one hit kill a Hind, no question about that. But a moving Hind might not be an easy target, and if it misses, well, now the helo knows where the shooters are thanks to the very visible beam, and it's gonna engage them.

Remember, every craftworld Eldar tank can fly twice as fast than any helicopter in modern 2011 existence, let alone the 80s. Helo speed record (for a speed optimized unarmed streamlined non-military craft) is around 400 kph. In high altitude flight, an Eldar tank can clip along at 850 (p. 74, Chapter Approved the Second Book of the Astronomicon). It can also manage 180 kph at low altitude, too.

Not everything in 40K is 'lol-slow-and-clanky' and the Guard do manage to hit them.

So they fly at hundreds of kilometers per hour while fighting inside urban warfare environments between buildings?

Okay, I thought Guardsmen with anti-tank weapons had it easy when engaging targets in urban environments when tanks have to move slowly due to the buildings around them and all that stuff. I didn't know their targets were actually buzzing and racing through these wartorn cities like as if it's Fast and the Furious Necromunda Drift or something.

See above. When their basic shoulder launchers are able to engage them effectively, why would they bother to issue a separate version?

[/quote][/quote]

Engage them effectively when they're flying at hundreds of kilometers per hour in the stratosphere, or engage them when they're actually in an urban warfare environment, in Space Stalingrad?

There's a reason why a Eldar Hovertank would want to fly lower nearer to the ground (and thus slower as to not get pasted on any buildings), because if it flew high and fast, Hydras and SAMs would paste it. Whereas Hydras and SAMs would have a harder time hitting it if it's flying low and near the ground and inside a city... though it would still have to contend with infantry with anti-air/anti-tank weapons.

It's like real life aircraft. Aircraft fly high to avoid RPGs and machineguns, but risk getting hit by larger SAMs. Aircraft fly low to avoid large SAMs, but expose themselves to infantry with machineguns and RPGs that, while incapable of hitting high-flying fast movers, can take out slower low-flying foes.

[Gunhead]

One thing does come to mind, can we assume Lascannon bolts/shots/beams etc. move at light speed or this is again just a weapon group that in fact contains a number of different weapons that are just dumped into a category for convenience?

Anyway, shoulder mounted AA weapons have all the same drawback that the operator needs to spot the target before he can engage it and if you're relying on visual cues to spot a chopper doing a pop up attack, your window of opportunity is very small. This can be somewhat helped by having the team with the weapon in radio contact with any spotter radar that can tell the team possible targets coming their way, or a have multiple spotter teams to work in unison. Most modern IFVs can shoot at choppers, but they basically have the same problem.

-Gunhead

[Shroom Man 777]

Shoulder mounted AA weapons (I assume you mean MANPADs, as you don't carry AA machineguns on your shoulder) have the advantage of seeker heads which may or may not be a feature present on the anti-tank weapons you described? Stingers, Iglas and Strelas are fire and forget. Lascannons... aren't.

What are the guidance systems on anti-tank krak/melta missiles (and other 40k anti-tank missile stuffs) like? A Guardsman can pop out of the rubble and shoot an anti-tank missile at a rumbling tank, or an Eldar hovertank that's moving slow and low in the city (rather than high and fast in the sky where heavy AA/SAMs will paste it), but would these missiles be capable of blowing up aircraft flying in the sky? Would these same missiles be capable of hitting an Eldar hovertank that's not going slow and low in urban environs, and is instead flying high and fast?

There's a reason why TOWs and Milans kill tanks just fine, but when you take on choppers and planes you break out the Stingers and Iglas and Strelas whose guidance systems are optimized for killfucking aircraft, and whose missile performances are also optimized for that (missiles don't need giant warheads to punch through tank armor, and can pack more propellant and coolant-cooled seeker heads, making them more ideal for chasing aircraft than slower heavier more explodey anti-tank warheads).

Perhaps IG 40k guys' anti-tank missiles can also shoot down aircraft because they're like ADATs maybe. Who knows.

[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.

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.

Yeah, Annihilators have large twin lascannons in the main turret and used to be more common. I think the platform may have been designed with those in mind rather than the battle cannon.

It's just speculation though.

[Shroom Man 777]

The turret is pretty small. It's hard to imagine how the Commissar can go out of the hatch and wave his sword, while there'd still be space inside for ammo and loaders and armor and whatever.

[Connor MacLeod]

One thing does come to mind, can we assume Lascannon bolts/shots/beams etc. move at light speed or this is again just a weapon group that in fact contains a number of different weapons that are just dumped into a category for convenience?

Probably the latter, since it usually depends on the author. Abnett for example seems to treat lasers as "light bullets" while various authors have their own ideas about them. For the sake of argument I just assume they are "laser" or "laser like" - in enough cases they fire beams and come from something with a lens that the specifics probably don't matter. That doesn't cover tracking, targeting, recoil issues (either because it fires a ton of energy, or they eject some sort of coolant or something or other, or whatever the fuck. Lasweapons sometimes have recoil and someitmes not. Even within the own series.)

I forgot about that. Was it special rigging or what?

As I recall yeah.. It was one of those "Shit we're doomed better do what we need to and appease the Machine spirit/Omnissiah after" sort of things.

Although now that I remember it "His Last Command" had some self propelled laser platforms that were like Hydras, as I recall. Or matybe they were just a throwback to the Rapier Laser Destroyer

[NecronLord]

That's when the helicopter is close, and that requires the machinegun to fire quite a lot of bullets (not just to down the helo, but to actually hit it while it's moving in the sky). How accurate is the las cannon? How fast is its ROF? Cause, yes, it can one hit kill a Hind, no question about that. But a moving Hind might not be an easy target, and if it misses, well, now the helo knows where the shooters are thanks to the very visible beam, and it's gonna engage them.

Very visible? You've been playing too much dawn of war. There's no concensus on whether lasguns and lascannons have visible beams.

So they fly at hundreds of kilometers per hour while fighting inside urban warfare environments between buildings?

Okay, I thought Guardsmen with anti-tank weapons had it easy when engaging targets in urban environments when tanks have to move slowly due to the buildings around them and all that stuff. I didn't know their targets were actually buzzing and racing through these wartorn cities like as if it's Fast and the Furious Necromunda Drift or something.

Yes. Skimmers are basically the 40k equivalent of helicopters. To the point that the third edition rulebook actually described them as 'like a modern helicopter' or somesuch. It is quite likely they burn around the sky at top speed in some urban combat.

There's a reason why a Eldar Hovertank would want to fly lower nearer to the ground (and thus slower as to not get pasted on any buildings), because if it flew high and fast, Hydras and SAMs would paste it. Whereas Hydras and SAMs would have a harder time hitting it if it's flying low and near the ground and inside a city... though it would still have to contend with infantry with anti-air/anti-tank weapons.

The fact that a skimmer can operate at ground level at lower speeds does not mean they are capable of operating in a helicopter profile which is indeed what they're supposed to do.

It's like real life aircraft. Aircraft fly high to avoid RPGs and machineguns, but risk getting hit by larger SAMs. Aircraft fly low to avoid large SAMs, but expose themselves to infantry with machineguns and RPGs that, while incapable of hitting high-flying fast movers, can take out slower low-flying foes.

And like RL aircraft, they're not going to permanantly sit at ground level going slowly

[NecronLord]

Shoulder mounted AA weapons (I assume you mean MANPADs, as you don't carry AA machineguns on your shoulder) have the advantage of seeker heads which may or may not be a feature present on the anti-tank weapons you described? Stingers, Iglas and Strelas are fire and forget. Lascannons... aren't.

Which are of course, not the only weapons mentioned. Lascannons are one. Imperial Guard possess rocket launchers, which may or may not have guidance, and are their actual shoulder weapons and canonical weapon of choice there. The example shown above is of a standard Guard rocket launcher hitting aircraft. In order to do that it is likely they have some kind of guidance.

Lascannons are mentioned because they are also used. They are even used in dogfighting in the air and in space; logically there must be some aim-adjust capacity in them as they can canonically engage targets moving at relativistic velocity in some cases - at least some lascannons thus have "guidance" that tears anything a big gaping wound in IRL guidance limitations and shits in the hole.

What are the guidance systems on anti-tank krak/melta missiles (and other 40k anti-tank missile stuffs) like? A Guardsman can pop out of the rubble and shoot an anti-tank missile at a rumbling tank, or an Eldar hovertank that's moving slow and low in the city (rather than high and fast in the sky where heavy AA/SAMs will paste it)

I am entertained by your assumption that eldar grav tanks will always be zooming around into the guns of entire AA contingents, when their fixed wing aircraft and tank hunters are unmatched.

There's a reason why TOWs and Milans kill tanks just fine, but when you take on choppers and planes you break out the Stingers and Iglas and Strelas whose guidance systems are optimized for killfucking aircraft, and whose missile performances are also optimized for that (missiles don't need giant warheads to punch through tank armor, and can pack more propellant and coolant-cooled seeker heads, making them more ideal for chasing aircraft than slower heavier more explodey anti-tank warheads).

Perhaps IG 40k guys' anti-tank missiles can also shoot down aircraft because they're like ADATs maybe. Who knows.

The guy who wrote that into Gunheads and made it canon?

[Shroom Man 777]

Yes. Skimmers are basically the 40k equivalent of helicopters. To the point that the third edition rulebook actually described them as 'like a modern helicopter' or somesuch. It is quite likely they burn around the sky at top speed in some urban combat.

The fact that a skimmer can operate at ground level at lower speeds does not mean they are capable of operating in a helicopter profile which is indeed what they're supposed to do.

And like RL aircraft, they're not going to permanantly sit at ground level going slowly

A Black Hawk helicopter has a max speed of 159 kn (183 mph, 295 km/h), a service ceiling of 19,000 ft (5,790 m), and a rate of climb of 700 ft/min (3.6 m/s).

In Somalia, a number of Black Hawk got shot down by RPGs and small arms fire.

Does this mean that RPGs are capable of shooting down a Black Hawk flying at top speed and at its maximum height? No, it's an unguided missile with range limitations and also limitations on the aim of the user.

Those RPGs that shot down the Black Hawks did so when the Black Hawks were loitering at low altitudes, when disgorging troops or providing CAS, not when they were high up in the sky.

This example may be similar to 40k weapons. Just because a krak missile can down an Eldar hovertank may not necessarily mean that the krak missile can reliably hit an Eldar hovertank at its service ceiling while flying at max speed, the hovertanks may have gotten hit when they were close to the ground to disgorge troops/attack ground targets/evade SAMs.

Which are of course, not the only weapons mentioned. Lascannons are one. Imperial Guard possess rocket launchers, which may or may not have guidance, and are their actual shoulder weapons and canonical weapon of choice there. The example shown above is of a standard Guard rocket launcher hitting aircraft. In order to do that it is likely they have some kind of guidance.

I know the IG has other weapons. What was the flight profile of the aircraft that the Guard rocket launcher hit? Again, I refer to my Black Hawk Down example. Just because Weapon X can hit Aircraft Y when it is flying low to do Mission Z (disgorging troops/flying low to hit ground targets/evading high altitude SAMs or enemy fighters) does not mean Weapon X may also hit Aircraft Y when it is flying high and fast to do Mission B (like if the aircraft is in the stratosphere or something).

Another example.

Months ago in Libya, rebel AA weapons, I'll presume a technical-mounted cannon, shot down an Su-22 Fitter.

The Su-17/22 Fitter is capable of flying at Mach 2 at around 14 kilometers up in the sky.

Does this mean that rebel AA weapons mounted on a technical truck can shoot down an aircraft flying at supersonic speeds several kilometers in the sky?

No. Because that Su-22 was actually captured by the rebels, and had just taken off from a runway, when other rebels shot it down (mistaking it for an enemy Qadaffi aircraft).

My point is that merely stating that "this weapon shot down this aircraft" and "this aircraft's top performance allows it to fly in the stratosphere at multi-mach speeds" still leaves a lot of information to be desired. Because using this technique, I could make that Libyan rebel technical-mounted AA gun sound even more accurate and long-ranged than a 40k weapon that shoots down Eldar hovertank - though I doubt this is actually the case.

Lascannons are mentioned because they are also used. They are even used in dogfighting in the air and in space; logically there must be some aim-adjust capacity in them as they can canonically engage targets moving at relativistic velocity in some cases - at least some lascannons thus have "guidance" that tears anything a big gaping wound in IRL guidance limitations and shits in the hole.

The lascannons aerospacecraft use in dogfighting, with the targeting systems inherent in aerospacecraft, may not necessarily be the same lascannons used by infantry and ground forces, and may not necessarily have the same targeting systems either?

That's like stating that a minigun mounted on the side of a Black Hawk helicopter might have awesome targeting capabilities because F-16s also use miniguns for dogfighting. Or that the minigun used by the governor of Minnesota in Predator has similar target acquisition abilities to the miniguns mounted on A-10 Warthogs.

I am entertained by your assumption that eldar grav tanks will always be zooming around into the guns of entire AA contingents, when their fixed wing aircraft and tank hunters are unmatched.

I am assuming that aircraft might fly low to either avoid missiles and high-altitude SAMs or to deliver strike packages to ground targets, which is presumably why they end up being exposed to shoulder-fired infantry weapons.

That's the whole paradigm of low altitude penetration. The concept of "aircraft flies low to avoid radar/high-altitude SAMs/AAA" (which consequently makes the low-flying aircraft vulnerable to shoulder-fired weapons and small arms).

The guy who wrote that into Gunheads and made it canon?

What was the circumstances of the shoulder-fired weapon striking the Eldar aircraft? Was the Eldar aircraft flying at Mach 3 in the upper mesosphere like a Stuart Slade-ian TBO-ish XB-70 Valkyrie (which would render them immune to anything but high-performance SAMs)? Was the Eldar aircraft flying low to attack ground targets, much more like a helicopter or an A-10 (which do get hit by shoulder-fired weapons and small arms because of their flight profile)?

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Just got to reply to this one because yes, it was me making the claim that the numbers in IA in particular are set intentionally low, by staff members who know better, for comedy/grimdark purposes; source is low confidence- word of mouth from GW Portsmouth, confirmed by a university friend and gaming buddy who worked for them in GW Cardiff, and by Shadowsword- the RN games club. GW Dundee said "could be", so I think I can say that least some of the retail level bits of GW believe that it is or could be true. Admittedly it's not that I have a signed confession or anything, and of course they might simply have been humouring the lunatic and waiting for me to go away.


On topic, Soviet MRD;

At divisional level,
comm batallion including SIGINT elements
Recon batallion
Independent tank batallion, quadrilateral (52 tanks)- division HQ guards
Rocket batallion- six SRBM launchers
Anti tank artillery batallion- eighteen towed guns, six heavy ATGM launchers
Combat engineering batallion
Chemical warfare batallion- mainly detection and decontamination
Anti aircraft regiment; five batteries of six launchers, probably SA-6; reinforced in wartime by 'shadow' batteries of towed AA guns, again five batteries of six
Artillery regiment; three batallions, each three batteries of six, of 155mm SPG; one batallion of three batteries of six heavy multiple rocket launchers
attached flight of 6 helicopters

One tank regiment;
headquarters company
regimental recon company
three tank batallions, each of three triangular companies plus company and batallion command, adding up to 31 tanks
Motor rifle batallion- three triangular companies again, plus mounted automatic mortar battery of 6
artillery batallion- three batteries of six 122mm SP guns
rocket battery- six Grad- P (BM-12) multiple rocket launchers
SAM battery- six lighter mobile missile launchers, six SP AA guns
engineer company
chemical defence company
maintenance company
motor transport company

Three motor rifle regiments;
mirror images of the tank regiment- three motor rifle and one tank batallion, supporting arms the same


The three-and-one rule seems to hold, an All- Arms Army is three motor rifle and one tank divisions, a tank army is three tank and one motor rifle division; so yes, that's a lot of heavy metal.

[PainRack]

I would like to point out that the traditional AA protection of the guard were the hydras with their AA autocannons. Cain did utilise several other variants. The multilasers example quoted, used against shuttles and featuring some form of auto-targeter machine spirit in Cain last stand. Another example would be the use of bolters against the fuel blimp in Duty Calls. However, this really shouldn't be used since even the bolt pistol was "effective" against such a huge target, suggesting extreme, extenuating circumstances.


Skimmers and land speeders have been successfully engaged by Guardsmen before, from las rifles to missile launchers/lascanons, but let's do consider the ranges and tactics involved.... Unlike real life helo pilots, despite the existence of the pop up tactics available to skimmers in 2nd edt and epic, the novels that do feature such shoot down featured no such evasive tactics. Instead, skimmers appeared to rely on their speed and etc to avoid being shot down, and even here, were slow enough so that the gunner could manually aim and target them.

[Shroom Man 777]

Multilasers against shuttles, what were the shuttles doing? Were they high up in the stratosphere? Were they banking down low near the ground prior to disgorging troops? How fast were these shuttles? Were these hypersonic fast movers coasting on atmospheric reentry momentum? Were these huge slow-moving transport craft?

Again "ground vehicle multilasers configured to hit air targets" could be equivalent to a Humvee's .50 machinegun hitting an F-22 flying at the edge of space, or a technical truck's machine gun hitting a helicopter that's about to rope down soldiers a couple dozen feet over the ground.

I don't doubt the formidability of 40k vehicle mounted weapons. My initial statements were directed at infantry-carried weapons, their analogues to Stingers and Iglas and other MANPADS (Man-portable air defense systems).

[Black Admiral]

The only particular example I can think of with Guard man-portable weapons being used against aircraft is the earlier-mentioned example of missile launcher teams taking out Ork fighta-bommas in Gunheads, and that isn't given any kind of detail - just a one-line mention that it's happened.

[Shroom Man 777]

Are Ork fighta-bommas prone to close air support and dive bombing tactics?

[Simon_Jester]

You bet they are. Indeed, I'm not sure they have much concept of doing anything else...

[Shroom Man 777]

I bet the missile launchers didn't actually dent the armor, and the Orks just flew straight into the ground.

EDIT:

I'm thinking it would be awesome for the next-generation of Imperium precision guided missiles and such, probably obtained from an STC on some awesome forge world, would end up putting seeker heads on the missiles. Seeker heads that look like skulls. Imagine, skull eye sockets that pick up laser designators. Or skull-missiles with FLIR built into the eyes. Their mouths could open and spew out the superheated streams of HEAT stuff. Or lasers. Yes.

There could be impact-fuses that look like spikes, on those seeker skulls.

And when the missiles are placed in storage, they tag those missiles (like what you see in aircraft carriers) by putting miniature banners. On the seeker skulls. Which have spikes!

[Black Admiral]

I bet the missile launchers didn't actually dent the armor, and the Orks just flew straight into the ground.

I rather doubt that. Steven Parker writes orks as a lethally serious threat for all their absurdities (and does a far better job there than a lot of authors, e.g. Sandy Mitchell).

Checking, there is one direct example in Gunheads of a missile team taking out a fighta-bomma, but it's too vaguely described to be able to tell anything useful from.

[Shroom Man 777]

Screw you, Sandy Mitchell is awesome.

Well, I don't dispute that the IG has man-portable anti-air capabilities. But that's my point earlier on, it's an aspect that's hardly shown in the fluff. Aerial warfare in 40k is not as well defined as ground warfare. I mean, damn, the most air combat-centric work in 40k fluff is, what, Deff Skwadron?

[NecronLord]

I mean, damn, the most air combat-centric work in 40k fluff is, what, Deff Skwadron?

Presumably the background in Aeronautica Imperialis, the air-combat game.

[Shroom Man 777]

Which I've never heard about, and probably pales in comparison to the exploits of the likes of Maverork and KILLBOY.

[NecronLord]

I know the IG has other weapons. What was the flight profile of the aircraft that the Guard rocket launcher hit?

It does not matter, you seem to have gotten the idea I'm saying it's some kind of omni-spectrum all-altitude super-duper kill weapon.

My point is

Your original point was "How do Imperial Guard MANPADs equivalents fare against Russki Strelas and Iglas?" The correct answer is "we are not sure, but the IG have a number of potential aircraft killers and routinely fight enemies with numerous aircraft far more sophisticated than anything the Soviets could build. Given that they remain competative in this environment, it is reasonable to assume they are more advanced."

I am not saying that the IG possess some kind of Lazy Gun style hand-gun that will blast the entire Russian Air Force out of the air in one shot. I am saying that there's no reason to think they are any worse than modern equivalents, given the limited information we have in this area.

Given that standard IG weapons have been used on occasion to engage aircraft, we have no particular reason to presume that they are less advanced than modern weapons, what with the Imperial Guard coming from a civilization that is, at its best, more advanced in every concievable area of engineering and technology, it is eminently reasonable to assume these peform at least as well as 1980s equivalents.

The lascannons aerospacecraft use in dogfighting, with the targeting systems inherent in aerospacecraft, may not necessarily be the same lascannons used by infantry and ground forces, and may not necessarily have the same targeting systems either?

Correct. Conversely, they may well be equipped with highly sophisticated systems in that role, given that they are occasionally used in that role. Compared to the feats they have demonstrated constructing similar weapons elsewhere, replicating the performance of a modern weapon is small beans, which means they can be assumed to be more than adequate unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.

For instance, let's say an Imperial Guard guy has a laser pointer.

You want to know if it's as good as a 90s Laser pointer. It is entirely reasonable to assume that it is, given the Imperium's far superior grasp of laser technology in its other applications.

Similarly, the use of lascannons as dogfighting weapons is relevant to their potential utility as ground-to-aircraft weapons, man portable and other, because this demonstrates that they can be linked to the kind of sophisticated targetting and aim adjusting systems that are required.

What was the circumstances of the shoulder-fired weapon striking the Eldar aircraft?

The example is not Eldar. The Eldar example was used to illustrate an enemy the Guard fight regularly who have superior-to-modern aircraft, and thus the idea that they will be ill equipped to fight a highly air supported opponent requires proof, and cannot be taken for granted.

[Black Admiral]

I mean, damn, the most air combat-centric work in 40k fluff is, what, Deff Skwadron?

Presumably the background in Aeronautica Imperialis, the air-combat game.

Also Double Eagle and the follow-on short story Apostle's Creed in the Sabbat Worlds anthology. Neither have anything to say that I can recall about man-portable anti-aircraft weaponry.

[Shroom Man 777]

Note that I never said that they would be ill equipped to face Soviet aircraft, I complained about the lack of details in regards to IG anti-air capabilities, as I've said, I haven't really read much in the way of IG engaging aircraft, when compared to the volumes of them shooting Orks in the face or blowing tanks up. Likewise, I didn't assume that their anti-air capabilities would be inferior to modern tech. I even suggested IG forces precision-designate targets for bombardment, and it was mentioned that they don't really do pinpoint lasing of targets which modern guys do, and instead just give out grid coordinates for the batteries to flatten (because it works just as well in their environment).

Given that they remain competative in this environment, it is reasonable to assume they are more advanced."

Thing is, though, just how heavily do they employ aircraft fire support?

Simon Jester brought up how they lack precision laser-designated bombardment capabilities (which is why you or Connor also mentioned how they'd be better suited to using lascannons on their tanks rather than BVR cannonry) precisely because the battlefield environment makes saturation bombardment preferable for dealing with hordes of enemies.

So, for example, IF 40k heavy SAMs and AAA like Hydras (and their equivalents in other races' militaries) make the airspace extremely hostile for aircraft to operate in - explaining why we don't hear that much of air support, at least not compared to modern military stuff where everyone always talks about air support - this might in turn explain why they don't really pack much in the way of MANPADS or whatever, because in their environment, air defense systems are much more effective in dealing with air power compared to today, so ground troops have to more to worry about enemy ground formations than enemy aircraft strafing runs. Just like how they don't have much in the way of precision bombardment systems because they don't need to, and instead prefer to just carpet-artillery the entire place.

The mention of theater shield systems in the Gaunt novels, and their potential prevalences in high-intensity conflict zones like hiveworlds, might also explain this. We read volumes of soldiers shooting Orks and tanks in the face, but seldom little of strategic air bombings or air campaigns, maybe because there's a huge ass rayshield blocking the airplanes while the troops fight on the ground and shoot folks in the face a lot. Or infantry and tanks are actually fighting inside a building as large as a city, and aircraft aren't used that much because they might fly into the giant walls or the ceiling.

If. This is pure conjecture on how 40k warfare, air and ground, might work. I am not as well read as others on 40k though. My principle reading has been the Cain books and Eisenhorn, and some Gaunt ages ago.

[Of course, this doesn't explain Eldar or Tau, but how often do you see Eldar fielding huge ass armies and air forces, or attacking targets like hiveworlds? When do we read about Eldar ever engaging, head-on, giant masses of IG? Aren't they supposed to be elusive sneaky bastards?]


EDIT:

To add to this, okay, we don't know much about 40k infantry MANPADS analogues. But what about the Hydras and other SAMs and heavy AAA? I know for a fact that Hydras were capable of shooting down Tyranid spores coming from space (though at what speeds or altitudes the spores were at during interception, who knows, generous estimates might make them ABM analogues, while conservative estimates might make them out to be less impressive).