Commander Remiel Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Codex Space Marine 4th Edition and the Imperial Armour books do indicate how many crew the various vehicles. Although they do, sometimes, conflict. While it is not Codex Space Wolves, I believe they would have similar if not exactly the same crew numbers. Rhino/Razorback 1 I would have to disagree with your personnel count on the rhinos and razorbacks, they have 2, a driver and a gunner, hence the two marines in the box The information I listed is found in the Codex Space Marines (4th Ed) AND Imperial Armour 2. The current Razorback's the turret is operated remotely IIRC (IA2). The Rhino also comes with two marines but you did not disagree with the crew of 1. With current APCs, one of the passengers often will man the gun (or for Rhino/Razorback, Storm Bolter). Nothing says both Marines in the box have to be painted as crew or that you need to use both. Personally I do not agree with the 'official' number of 1 and think 2 would be more appropriate but then I think most Space Marine vehicle are undercrewed. They use a lot of automated systems to make up for the smaller crews. But that is me. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2080813 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forseti Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 As I said I was recalling from memory XD After looking at the codex again, they are sometimes asked by their lord to lead squads, and btw I haven't read any of the SW novels so idk about what info they give there. Edit: And is it just me or have a lot of my posts lately started arguments? o.O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2080818 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Remiel Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Edit: And is it just me or have a lot of my posts lately started arguments? o.O Could be. How about you buy this Dark Angel an ale and we can tell each other some lies? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2080820 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dewi Sant Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 With current APCs, one of the passengers often will man the gun. I know of no NATO APC where a dismount will operate a vehicle weapon System. The reason this doesn't happen is due the the fact that the weapon systems are used just as much in support of dismounted operations as they are for protection of the vehicle crew. Edited for spelling Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2080824 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schertenleib Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I have to admit that this is one of the problems I have with the Rhino design. Once the Pack dismounts the Rhino has only a single storm bolter to use in support of the pack. It just seams like, "ok guys go get 'em. I'll cover ya with my pea shooter." With current APCs, one of the passengers often will man the gun. I know of no NATO APC where a dismount will operate a vehicle weapon System. The reason this doesn't happen is due the the fact that the weapon systems are used just as much in support of dismounted operations as they are for protection of the vehicle crew. Edited for spelling Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2080953 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Well that Pea shooter IS a rapid firing RPG..... and you can have two of them. *Shrugs* The main argument for a single crewman is practicality however, as it is one of the passengers is shoved into the co-drivers seat. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2081427 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dietrich Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 In the fluff, it's generally Space Wolves of Grey Hunter rank (or higher) that serve as vehicle crews. There's fluff that suggests it's the last remnants of Packs (who are also used as traning sergeants and to lead Blood Claws) and also some suggests that some Space Wolves are selected for the training. GW and the BL books are inconsistent in the advancement of individuals. In the second edition codex, it was pretty clear that individuals moved up the ranks from Scout to Blood Claw to Grey Hunter to Long Fang (and possibly to Wolf Guard at some point). And, yes, in 2nd ed, they started as Scouts just as the Codex chapters do. This is similar to how the Black Library books are written, where Sven is advanced to Grey Hunter by himself, except that they start as Blood Claws, not as Scouts. In the third editon codex, the GW concept was that the whole Pack advanced together. So, once the Pack was deemed worthy of being Grey Hunters, they're all promoted. And that the Pack stays together for life, so as they dwindle in numbers, they don't get replacements. It's possible that it's both individuals being selected for additional training (which, like Wolf Guard, would likely bring some honor to their original pack for having an outstanding member who warrants the extra training) AND that the last few members of Packs are then re-assigned to the Armory and learn to crew vehicles. Also note, that in the William King novels (the first four), it's pretty clear that SWs crew the Thunderhawks. But, in the book, Wolf's Honour, I didn't think it was clear if the pilots were SWs and other crewmembers were bondsmen, or if the pilots were also bondsmen. But, the way it was written, I thought the pilots were bondsmen and not Space Wolves. Which, could possibly be consistent. The Chapter was stretched to their limits and every sword-arm was needed. Maybe Bondsmen are used to crew Thunderhawks for non-combat roles (resupply, moving troops, etc.), and since the Chapter was so thinly stretched, they had to press a Bondsmen-pilot Thunderhawk into Combat operations. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2081976 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durfast Spiritwolf Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 With current APCs, one of the passengers often will man the gun. I know of no NATO APC where a dismount will operate a vehicle weapon System. The reason this doesn't happen is due the the fact that the weapon systems are used just as much in support of dismounted operations as they are for protection of the vehicle crew. Edited for spelling I think that you are confusing APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) with IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) as it would be very rare for an APC to support dismounted operations due to its lack of armour protection. Many APCs only have a driver such as the FV432 (now upgraded to Bulldog) which carries a driver and ten dismounts with the Section Commander operating the MMG - Same detail for the Saxon APC. It is a true 'battle tax' and drops the troops off short of the objective, unlike modern IFVs (Bradley, Warrior etc) that are designed to enter close combat. It's always best to check your arcs before opening fire... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2082882 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dewi Sant Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 With current APCs, one of the passengers often will man the gun. I know of no NATO APC where a dismount will operate a vehicle weapon System. The reason this doesn't happen is due the the fact that the weapon systems are used just as much in support of dismounted operations as they are for protection of the vehicle crew. Edited for spelling I think that you are confusing APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) with IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) as it would be very rare for an APC to support dismounted operations due to its lack of armour protection. Many APCs only have a driver such as the FV432 (now upgraded to Bulldog) which carries a driver and ten dismounts with the Section Commander operating the MMG - Same detail for the Saxon APC. It is a true 'battle tax' and drops the troops off short of the objective, unlike modern IFVs (Bradley, Warrior etc) that are designed to enter close combat. It's always best to check your arcs before opening fire... I would be interested to know where your knowledge of current armoured tactics (COIN) and operational experience comes from? Having served on Bulldog (Iraq) and Mastiff (Afghanistan) and CVR(T) Spartan (lots), APC's are being use in a IFV role more than ever before. All APC/IFV are commanded by a fully qualfied crew commander and not the section Commanders. I have tried commanding a section on the ground and a vehicle at the same time and it does not work. In Afghan for instance once my dissmounts were on target I use the Vehical wpn syst (GMG or HMG dependent on fit out) in direct support of the dismounts in the assault. Mastiff is far better equipped than Warrior/Bradley to provid offencive support to troops in this environment due to the high level of mine blast protection. It can also soak up an alarming amount of SF/RPG/IDF, amounts that would render Warrior/Bradley In Op in a short space of time. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2083444 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durfast Spiritwolf Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 With current APCs, one of the passengers often will man the gun. I know of no NATO APC where a dismount will operate a vehicle weapon System. The reason this doesn't happen is due the the fact that the weapon systems are used just as much in support of dismounted operations as they are for protection of the vehicle crew. Edited for spelling I think that you are confusing APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) with IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) as it would be very rare for an APC to support dismounted operations due to its lack of armour protection. Many APCs only have a driver such as the FV432 (now upgraded to Bulldog) which carries a driver and ten dismounts with the Section Commander operating the MMG - Same detail for the Saxon APC. It is a true 'battle tax' and drops the troops off short of the objective, unlike modern IFVs (Bradley, Warrior etc) that are designed to enter close combat. It's always best to check your arcs before opening fire... I would be interested to know where your knowledge of current armoured tactics (COIN) and operational experience comes from? Having served on Bulldog (Iraq) and Mastiff (Afghanistan) and CVR(T) Spartan (lots), APC's are being use in a IFV role more than ever before. All APC/IFV are commanded by a fully qualfied crew commander and not the section Commanders. I have tried commanding a section on the ground and a vehicle at the same time and it does not work. In Afghan for instance once my dissmounts were on target I use the Vehical wpn syst (GMG or HMG dependent on fit out) in direct support of the dismounts in the assault. Mastiff is far better equipped than Warrior/Bradley to provid offencive support to troops in this environment due to the high level of mine blast protection. It can also soak up an alarming amount of SF/RPG/IDF, amounts that would render Warrior/Bradley In Op in a short space of time. I guess we've shared some of the same dust then but then again I'm may be a little rusty having left the infantry three years ago after 16 yrs and five tours (one of which was residential). I haven't used Mastiff or Viking but have commanded AI, Mech and Light companies and know a little about COIN as well as conventional operations in several theatres - you know how it goes. IFV designates its roles as much as APC so if you are using it as an IFV then that is what it is - it cannot be both at the same time as it's a question of classification. All that aside, the topic is about crews for vehicles in 40K. As I stated APCs have routinely operated with only a driver when out of contact as they are not designed to enter into the fight and, thus, the Sect Comd could operate the coax for local protection during normal moves. Things always move on but I still think that you are talking about IFVs- then again a Rhino is being crewed by a genetically enhanced warrior selected from the best their society had to offer. I hope that that help clear up where I'm coming from and any doubts you had about my right to comment... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2084419 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhorse47 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Thank you both for your service! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2084537 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schertenleib Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Seconded! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2084580 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dewi Sant Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 :P Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2084643 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dewi Sant Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 IFV designates its roles as much as APC so if you are using it as an IFV then that is what it is - it cannot be both at the same time as it's a question of classification. Hmmm, How about we just call them AFV's while these young blood claws fetch us an ale and pull up a sand bag while we tell them the sagas of war in a distant land Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2084646 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durfast Spiritwolf Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 IFV designates its roles as much as APC so if you are using it as an IFV then that is what it is - it cannot be both at the same time as it's a question of classification. Hmmm, How about we just call them AFV's while these young blood claws fetch us an ale and pull up a sand bag while we tell them the sagas of war in a distant land Agreed, here's to more beer, fatter women and a shorter working week Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/176014-sw-drivers-and-gunners/page/2/#findComment-2084761 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.