Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Mkay, this a detraction from my siege regiment thread.
Last edited by legio mortis; November 30th, 2007 at 00:28.
I know you quoted my post, but just to free up space in the other one.Sorry, but I refuse to believe that, outside certain mechanized regiments, every guardsman (of the billions upon billions in the galaxy) has an APC or transport to chase after the tanks in. If that was the case, Armaggedon would not be the specialized case.Originally Posted by Legio MortisOkay.. I think we need to clarify.Originally Posted by Legio Mortis
Attrition is the inevitable losses which happen in battle.
Advantage is, as the name suggests, a factor which gives one force the advantage over the other.
Advantage is not the opposite of attrition, so saying that Imperial commanders try to maximize advantage using tactics doesn't deny that they use attrition at all. Modern warfare, (and Tau warfare) emphasise the complete unacceptability of attrition, and that you should only fight when the advantage is overwhelming, falling back and conceding ground when attrition becomes intollerable.
If you see the Imperial guard fighting like that, I think you've got it wrong. Sure, they may have mobile elements, sure, they may emphasise shock and advantage in attack as the means of gaining the upper hand, but do you really see them falling back and giving ground once the advantage is worn out? I don't.. They have commisars to shoot people who retreat. The purpose is to win battles, not to try and conserve lives. If you can win a battle losing 10 men, good for you.. If you can win a battle losing 1000 men, you still won. I agree if you threw away 1000 men due to incompetence, it's unlikely to go down well with the Imperium, but I'm sure if you ordered a retreat from battle and failed to achieve your objectives because you didn't want to lose those men, it's not going to go down like a house on fire either.
Hence, being a tactically aware force is not exclusive with being a machine designed to grind the enemy down. It's just a kind of warfare we're not used to any more, because we live in democratic, media-aware societies where public opinion can end a war which is seen to be causing too many casualties. Even in the trenches and barbed wire era, generals understood advantage, and were open to new and more sophisticated tactics and technology, it's just nothing ever really worked well enough.Yeah.. I was starting to get the feeling we were agreeing, but because we had different definitions of attrition we were still getting confused. I actually agree with most of what you're saying.Originally Posted by Legio Mortis
Still not sure on the mechanization issue. I personally see most guardsmen transporting themselves on foot most of the time, with maybe local transport systems commandeered on higher tech worlds which might have them. I guess that doesn't rule out fast or aggressive tactics though, it just means the non-mechanized infantry get used a bit differently (consolidating and defending the ground captured by the mobile bits.)
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan
I always thought the Guard, as a deliberate pastiche of WWI-WWII armies and military tactics, treated attrition warfare as a necessary quality. It was part of their image, in the same way that Space Marines always seem to be either leading a spearpoint charge at the heart of the enemy or making a heroic last stand when outnumbered and outgunned. That's because Marines are space knights, and those two activities are what knights were supposed to do. They didn't actually, which is an important point; it's a parody of a modern-day trope, it doesn't have to be accurate or even logical.
Granted, there's nothing stopping any player from having their hypothetical Guard colonel be more modern and mobile in his tactics - they could even tie it in with the Tau. Maybe he fought them in the Damocles or Taros campaigns and noticed that their mobile hit-and-run tactics were ripping him up.
But generally, the Imperial Guard's thinking is: if X is equal to troop numbers before the battle, and Y is equal to troop numbers after the battle, then (X - Y) > 0 = glorious victory!
The above poster = Totally a member of the Fluff Masters Clan. Click here for fluff pwnage.
Come, sons of LO! Kneel before Poodle!
Mr_Wayne: "Some people believe that the World Eaters do not field any ranged weaponry. Those people often die at a distance."
I think that the overriding point here is that with so many millions of different Imperial Guard regments and fighting forces in the galaxy, the variations between the extreme ends are going to be, well, extreme. Of course there are guard commanders who would toss regiments into a meat grinder without hesitation, and of course there are commanders who don't. To say either is a "standard" tactic in an army that has almost no standarization doesn't really make any sense, and that goes with any tactic really. Fluff wise, its more interesting to read a story about two commanders who disagree about their tactics than two who are not ever in conflict with each other. This is why you can cite lots of stories about any kind of differing tactic in the Guard.
That being said, in my opinion, the guard image of a grind it out, drown em in our own blood kind of warfare seems to be a little more standard than a highly mobile, shock and awe type guard army. The fact of the matter is that guardsmen can be replaced without a thought. That's the strongest positive point in the guard. No matter how many you kill, billions can replace them.
I think you need to spend more time on your floor.
2500 Black Templars