Legion Influences // Historical Military Doctrines

[Kais Klip]

Leaving aside the cultural influences to the legions, do the more military-student minded of you see any plausible parallels between doctrines both of historical nations, cultures or even specific generals, or perhaps personifying certain textbook military tactics on their own, and the legions we see? 

 

I want to focus on stereotypes, as I understand any legion could have a go at any necessary mode of warfare, but I'm being cheeky and trying to use a roundabout way to identify the tactical/operational/strategical/whatever epigrams of each legion, as well as perhaps delve into their very military identities. 

 

The exercise may be limited in scope if we look at 40k chapters, with their uses mainly being relegated to Shock Troops, but I think with the scope of 30k, and with 16 out of 18 legions covered in significant Order of Battle detail by our Lord and Savior Bligh, we actually have enough material to begin arm generalling each legion on this fine Monday Morning. Bligh also seems to begin fleshing out certain strategic/operational/tactical niches for each of the legions, for example implying that the IIIrd and XXth (reliant on co-ordination) would have struggled on Prospero. I'm trying to get these good/bad strategic spots-to-be for each of the legions. 

 

To begin then: 

 

For example, would I be correct in drawing parallelsbetween Hannibal's lunge for Rome and Horus' spear thrust that encapsulated his rebellion? Are the Sons of Horus Attacking-The-Center-personified? 

 

If Soviet Deep Battle emphasizes pushing the point of least resistance, why would the World Eaters (in more tactical times) instead focus on points of max resistance (after identifying them with basically one giant recon-by-fire)? 

 

Are Perturabo's dogs really nothing more than turn-of-the-century trench pushers? 

 

Could we add any more depth to Night Lords other than a recurring case-in-point of "Defeat in Detail"? 

 

How would the approach of Ferrus, Perturabo and say Fulgrim deviate from each other in terms of a mechanised war on say good tank battle terrain (while still posing some weather/terrain issues). Guilliman doesn't participate, because he's the one asking this question. 

 

I want to go all the way down through history, by the way, seeing as our guys are not only armed with bolters but also with swords as well, so if you see a 30k equivalent to, say, a Spartan/Ancient Greek tactical mindset (a cautious, but disciplined and pragmatic approach to grinding, attritional warfare enabled by high morale(?)), do give a shout, as I'm basically looking for a legion that takes a spartan approach to warfare BUT without breachers. Yeah. In that case, who would represent a Caesar-Era Roman Legion and its use of flexible maniples? Sons of Horus, with their intuitive, on the fly approach? 

 

Bear in mind I'm just some guy who got lost on Wikipedia military tactics while on the dumper last night (Salamander's Tacos - Upon the Anvil). 

 

Edit: I just came up with a much better way to word this. What Legiones Astartes/RoW rules would each legion get, for the upcoming game of Titanicus/Epic 30k. 

[Laughingman]

The Night Lords tactics were part of the fiction before the development of the HH book line, but historical parallels are easy to make. Vlad the Impaler's campaign of terror against his own people and later the Turks come to mind.

[Kais Klip]

Aye but the development of the HH Book Line is well under way, and the adopted principalities of each of the legions are now not only committed to, but embraced by the GW IP team. I really want to avoid the "It was all supposed to be a paragraph" mindset that plagues so many other Why-the-legion's-are-so discussions.

 

Bligh and the Black Book team have done enough work that what can once be said to be a blunder (in terms of expanding a contradictory and plot-hole-filled paragraph) is now becoming a smoothed-out, stable and extremely successful work of linear setting.

 

Case in point; we have enough snippets from HH:2 and HH:5 (?, the blackshield one) to formulate preferred military tendencies for the Night Lords, at a detail more than "Scary Stuff". Vlad the Impaler, from my cursory look on Wikipedia, struggled to do more than fall back while executing a psiops campaign unbacked by actual military success. He didn't even guerrilla it. My point is, if we stick to Vlad as an example, what would the Night Lords mentality do in his situation? How would their defeat-in-detail approach be different to that, say, of the Raven Guard? My one credit to your example, is that Vlad actually tried to pull a Horus/Alpharius with his attempted infiltration and assassination of Mehmed's headquarters.

 

If we're talking about Night Lords first here, how would their strategic actions be different from the Dark Angels, say in the upcoming Thramas Campaign? 

 

What I want us to think of is less who are the Night Lords, more how would the Night Lords win the Gulf War (Bligh Edition)?

[Laughingman]

In that case I would argue the Night Lords MO has far more in common with cartel violence in Latin America then a conventional military outcome. 

Though the cartels use violence and terror to achieve an ends, to the Night Lords terror and violence simply became the ends.

[apologist]

An interesting thread for discussion! I'd suggest that a good starting point would be to look at the Legiones Astartes as a whole – i.e. how they operated pre-Unification – to get an idea of how each Legion then evolved. We know they specialised even very early on, but broadly speaking, I think it's fair to say that there are some common elements. This appraoch will (hopefully!) let us then follow each thread through, but keep a few common, central threads.

 

So, how did the pre-Primarch Legions operate? I think it's fair to say that the inspiration came from a mix of Classical and 'Dark Age' warfare*. Namely – infantry-focussed, with limited artillery, cavalry principally as support and an emphasis on melee combat. The Space Marine Legions are effectively extremely disciplined heavy infantry, akin to the Roman Legions. That much is fairly non-contentious. Similarly to late Roman legions, cavalry, artillery and skirmishers tended to come from mercenaries and allies; but the bulk of the work was done by the infantry during the 'High Classical' period.

 

Similarly to the Roman model, this became much looser later on, as the Legionaries were no longer drawn from the populace of Rome alone (Rome thus being equivalent to Terra in this discussion), instead being drawn directly from the region.  Again, this is similar to how the culture of the Astartes Legions altered as they began to draw from their Legion homeworld and fiefs.

 

With this borne in mind, which Legions retained the Early Roman model (that is, a reliance on heavy infantry supported by smaller specialist groups; relying on victory through better equipment, discipline, and reliable supply)? I'd argue the Imperial Fists, Emperor's Children, Ultramarines, Salamanders and Word Bearers fit this to a greater or lesser degree.

 

Beyond these, we can look to the other Legions. How do they differ? I'd suggest that the Iron Hands, Death Guard and (to a lesser extent) Iron Warriors rely more on direct attrition, and so can be more fairly compared with early Classical warfare ~ that less flexible, more direct appraoch of the Phalanx. While cavalry (and similar support) were used in Ancient Greece, they were more infrequently used than the later Roman Empire. These Space Marine Legions are good candidates for this less flexible approach.

 

Beyond these two broad classes, I think the other Legions are far more distinct in their approaches.

 

Further specifics

• The Sons of Horus share a lot of similarities with Carthage; and Horus particularly with Hannibal. I think there's a few parallels to be drawn here. Hannibal's great strength was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of both his force and the enemies – and then to strike quickly and unexpectedly – either in terms of sheer pace or by approaching from a direction thought safe; very similar to how Horus and his Sons fought.
• I've mentioned the Iron Warriors above, but it's not a perfect fit. I think that the Epirian King Pyrrhus is a great model for Perturabo. Brutal, uncompromising and inarguably a military genius, Pyrrhus fought – and defeated – the Romans through a combination of inflexible Phalanx infantry (hence my suggestion above) together with proportionally more specialised formations of cavalry, archers and slingers (roughly filling the role of Legion specialists in the 30k era) and war elephants, which stand for the metaphorical 'big guns': an almost unstoppable force which is crippled by its reliance on support. Pyrhhus' willingness to expend for forces and his brutal approach to discipline made him unloved, much like the bitter – but undoubtedly effective – Perturabo.
• The World Eaters. Well, if there's ever been a model for these warriors, it's the tribes of the Germanic and Celtic regions during the few centuries around the birth of Christ. Characterised – some would say caricatured – as fearless, aggressive and brutal, there's a reason the Romans found these forces terrifying to face. Angron is compared with Spartacus for obvious reasons, but Arminus is a better fit in many ways. A Cheruscan raised in Rome as a captive, he used his knowledge to lead an inferior force (less disciplined, worse equipment, more reliant on more fragile supply chains) to one of the greatest defeats Rome ever suffered at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. His forces were relatively lightly armed and relied on surprise and shock assaults – which seems fairly close to me.
• The Space Wolves operate in a similar way. There's obviously a pop-culture Viking element, but the Space Wolves don't really seem the raiding kind to me; and so I'd characterise them again as Germanic/Celtic tribes – reliant on personal valour and individual ability to carry the day, rather than strict discipline. Historically, the heroic charges of the Celts and German tribes of the early Centuries BC and AD didn't tend to end well, but the principle was fairly sound – terrify your opponents into breaking formation and then mop up through sheer individual merit – would actually work fairly well if you're as individually terrifying as an Astartes.
• The White Scars have an obvious connection with the Golden Horde – highly mobile, non-reliant on supply chains, and fighting through encirclement and harrying. The discipline of the Mongols was extremely high, and their equipment very well-maintained. The stereotype is of a mounted horse archer, but the Mongols also used heavy cavalry and other innovative ideas; they're a great match for the White Scars.
• Similarly, I think the Mongols might be the nearest conventional military force for the Night Lords. With a preference for encirclement, feigned retreat to draw out the enemy, and cutting off escape routes before harrying the enemy, they're a good fit. In addition, the Mongols were well-known for their psychological ruses – hiding their numbers, hurling dead bodies and putrefying heads over castle walls, feigning numerical superiority and – most fitting of all – relying on their dread reputation to win without a fight.
• The Blood Angels can be characterised as Macedonian in this Ancient model – a development of Classical phalanx warfare, they could fight on fight as well as the other more 'standard' Legions I listed above, but their preference is for overwhelming swift strikes of a powerful mobile element: cavalry in the case of the Macedonians, jump troops and bikes etc. in the case of the Blood Angels. In this model, Sanguinius becomes Philip of Macedon or – perhaps more fittingly – Alexander the Great. A couragous visionary, with a great love of his men and willingness to fight besides them; Alexander and Sanguinius are feared by their enemies and loved by their men.

The other Legions are, I think, harder to pin down; mainly because their military doctrines rely on more modern approaches, so they don't really fit the Classical/Dark Age model I've proposed. I'd suggest that:

• The Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are good examples of modern infantry warfare – small infiltrating groups supported by great communications, who rely on applying force exactly as required. Highly independent, self-directed and full of individual initiative, these Legions value as little collateral damage as possible. The nearest thing I can think of in real world history are the various partisan and guerilla resistance groups such as the French and Finnish resistance for the Raven Guard; and flipping it on its head for the Alpha Legion, who are relatively more reliant on esoteric and unusual 'technology' (such as psykers and so forth).
• This leaves just the Thousand Sons. They're such an odd Legion that beyond making comparisons to the Roman model, or the Ancient Persians/Egyptians (similarly inflexible to the 'Phalanx Legions', but with less reliable infantry and more chariots), I think there's not much to be said. If you ignore their psychic ability, they're effectively another 'Roman Legion' model Legion. 

 

Well, there're my thoughts on the military doctrines and approaches of the various Space Marine Legions, as seen through a lens of Classical/Mediaeval warfare. Obviously if you disagree with my initial thesis – i.e. that 30k is heavily spiced with references to this period – this is less useful, but I hope it's at least interesting. :)

 

 

(*Renatus' De Re Militari is a great resource for this – it's basically an early manual on how to conduct warfare, mostly drawn using the tactics and strategies of the Roman Empire (Eastern and Western) as the basis. Written sometime around the 4th–5th Century, the core of it marries very well with the descriptions of Unification and the Space Marines. It was utilised right up until the development of reliable firearms, and still referenced even today as a great summary of the art of warfare.)

[Kol Saresk]

The Night Lords tactics were part of the fiction before the development of the HH book line, but historical parallels are easy to make. Vlad the Impaler's campaign of terror against his own people and later the Turks come to mind.

Or Tony Poe. Hyaenidae introduced me to him and he definitely fits in the Night Lords mindset for tactics. But by the same token, ISIS could also be a very similar parallel because that is the exact crazy that goes into the Night Lords mentality. Basically any militarized group that uses shock and awe for mental destabilization of the enemy over an actual physical victory. Although the more casualties, the better.

[rendingon1+]

 

The Night Lords tactics were part of the fiction before the development of the HH book line, but historical parallels are easy to make. Vlad the Impaler's campaign of terror against his own people and later the Turks come to mind.

Or Tony Poe. Hyaenidae introduced me to him and he definitely fits in the Night Lords mindset for tactics. But by the same token, ISIS could also be a very similar parallel because that is the exact crazy that goes into the Night Lords mentality. Basically any militarized group that uses shock and awe for mental destabilization of the enemy over an actual physical victory. Although the more casualties, the better.

 

Yup. Terror tactics were present since the beginning of documented military history. Pinning down particular commander, forces or whatever in any period of history that were using terror tactics is pointless.

[Sete]

Hell i would compare the NL to the Celtiberans.

 

Banditism, terror tactics (headhunting and human sacrifice), a wee bit of murdering their leaders, and things would generally go to :cuss without a proper leader.

Also generally avoided direct confrontations, relying on ambushes and guerrile war.

[Kais Klip]

Apologist, you just carried the day mate. I can't thank you enough for that brilliant write up. My follow on question may be away from your area of expertise, so if you could answer one more;

Oh, and I particularly love your Pyrrhus connection to Iron Warriors, enough so to actually consider them.

What would you quintessentially characterize as the "greek" method of war? If we had to pinpoint it further, specifically that inflexible one of the Spartans? Cautious, disciplined, extremely durable both morale wise and armour wise, but perhaps intractable and unadaptable? To take it further (I'm an obvious laconophile at this point), if you had to give them Legiones Astartes rules, what would they look like? I'd buy you an internet cookie for a Rite of War. How would you balance their sense of... laconic prudence and pragmatism, with the critical lack of adaptability when it came to the wider methods of waging war (vs say, a maniple system). And how would they be different from the Athenians, or more specifically the Epirans (since now I'm really thinking Epirus in space).

I'm very attracted to the idea of the tactical, out-of-age underdog beating the maniple system of the Romans, so I'm trying to pin down what approach a (Epiran) Iron warriors force would take to defeat the more flexible Ultramarine legion. In a set battle, that is.

As for my more modern question, does modern warfare really change your example that much? Modern armour and artillery systems have been compared to cavalry and the artillery of the past, but would the legion approach change with the introduction of power armour that perhaps frees up some survivability for what once was light (now heavy) infantry? Surely modern tactics like light arm suppression wouldn't be as effective, and we would revert back to a more Musket-era 50% range 50% charge enviroment. Just like we see on the tabletop (with a slight preference towards shooting, as in reality back then).

[Ryltar Thamior]

Speaking to the Iron Warriors ... I'd suggest that what we're actually dealing with is, in no small part, a sort of combination of Ottoman (and/or Persian) and Soviet doctrines. 

The Near Eastern influences aren't just obvious in some of hte naming conventions [stor-Bezashk] and Black Book Fluff [although try as I might, I'm not yet able to track down an iron-clad identification for Sek-Amrak or whatever it was that formed the Legion's original mustering-ground]. Instead, if we consider the Byzantine (and others') experience of engaging the East, we often tend to hear about absolutely cyclopean siege engines deployed against otherwise-impregnable walls. 

Now, this leads rather handily onto the Soviet comparison. For which I shall focus on two elements. The first is, unquestionably, the Standard Soviet Armoured Vehicle Design - which basically comprises THE PEOPLE'S TRIUMPHANT PROGRESSIVE CANNON on tracks and with as much frontal armour as necessary (also in a surprisingly high-tech package is all of the above). As applies assault guns and the like, I think there's an obvious parallel between the Soviets' IS-152s etc. and Iron Warriors' innovations/preferred support gear [see, for instance, Perturabo working with the Mechanicum to produce the Typhon]. And we can also sketch out some other similarities based around the Soviets' long-running love of massed artillery barrages. 

But the similarities don't end there. As we know from generations of Hollywood propaganda "history" [and, for that matter, a certain level of fact], the Soviet way of war seemed to emphasize approaching conflict as an arithmetical equation. The trading of men for distance, and time during the first half of hte 2nd World War is probably the best example of this. It's a pretty common element, tbh, of modern grand-strategy level warfare ... but the Soviets (whether due to their command's own mentality or simply due to the realities of the situation) seemed to take it up to a real next level of application. 

As this compares back to the Glorious IVth ... well ... I'm pretty sure in the relevant Black Book (and possibly ANgel Exterminatus), exactly this approach winds up coming through. We could also argue that their relative immunity to shooting-based morale depletion (i.e.  the notion that forcing them off an objective or out of a building tends to require their actual destruction through sheer weight of fire) may be reflective of the whole "NOT ONE STEP BACK" directive of Stalinesque fame. 

Now, talking of specific styles of engagement ... the relevant Rites of War may be a good baseline here. 

Ironfire is, as everybody knows, yet another re-invention of the Walking Barrage employment of artillery. What makes it arguably different is i) the scale of the guns used in its first employment; ii) the integration of MIUs etc. for unprecedented fire-control (again, applied to the novella); and iii) its use to directly cover and clear a path for a rapid armoured advance. 

This makes for something a bit different to the standard "Power Armoured WWI" trench-running vibe; as the application of precision-bombardment as a force multiplier arguably seems to resemble far more modern warfare more closely than the relatively crude bombardments of warfare a century ago. Again, Soviet (although in this case, perhaps mid-late Cold War Russians, rather than their WWII predecessors) forces spring to mind. Although it also occurs that many mid-late 20th century forces have attempted to do at least vaguely similar things [and the German obsession with reeeeaalllyy biiiiggg artillery during the Second World War instantly springs to mind]

Hammer of Olympia is probably relatively straight armoured warfare. Although it did occur to me that there's perhaps an argument for a comparison with late-20th century Israelis. In specia, dedicated measures to increase vehicle survivability [my first thought was the German innovations in this area, however] and rolling through destroying buildings.

Having said that, it did also occur to me that there are elements of Hezbollah in the way the Iron Warriors fight on the defensive. Forget the stereotype of WWI trenches or Vauban star-forts (as aesthetic as they can be) ... read up about the Nature Reserves Hezbollah employed in the 2006 conflict and tell me it doesn't remind you of something :P In specia, the engagement at Maroun al Ras, wherein Israeli special forces sent to investigate/disable a Hezbollah launch-site wound up stumbling on a seriously sophisticated bunker complex and taking heavy casualties as a result. I know the parallel's a bit of a loose one, but I couldn't help but be reminded somewaht of the Iron Cage incident - in specia, how a strategically less-relevant objective is used to draw in a force, which doesn't realize what they're getting into (i.e. an elaborate danger-zone - the Nature Reserves were literally described as "killing boxes" by some), and then sustains surprisingly high losses as a result. These structures were sufficiently advanced and effective [seriously - check the description of how far deep underground and well fortified they were] that the IDF basically wound up instituting a policy of avoiding rather than engaging the Nature Reserves for the rest of the War. 

Now, dependent upon local Iron Warrior commanders and situations, there are a litany of other historical doctrines which could potentially form an influence on how a given IVth force operates. We often hear a lot about large (and relatively static) artillery; but the number of vehicles configured for a 'tank destroyer' role which the Iron Warriors appear to have suggests that they must also make use of both i) the standard "ambush" approach for jagdpanzers [i.e. fire and withdraw]; as well as, potentially, older styles of engagement. The innovations of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden during the Thirty Years' War concerning the employment of mobile lighter artillery spring instantly to mind. 

A further set of possibilities can be addeuced from the Iron Warriors' large-scale engagement at Tallarn. Obviously, as prettty much THE largest armoured conflict in Imperial history, forces associated with highly mobile tank warfare will be a logical point of comparison/inspiration. Although in my head Tallarn plays out rather more like '73 Easting than it does the Fall of France. But something else springs to mind. The opening bombardment of the planet is not conducted via conventional means - but instead, the application of a virulent biological weapon. An argument could be made that this is an updating of the employment of chemical agents which wreathed the battlefields of the Western Front in the First World War in awful mustard ... but I suspect the closer analogy may be with the NBC threat of the Cold War battlefield [hence the importance of combatant vehicles having environmental seals, etc.] - or, more darkly, the use of what are strictlly speaking not chemical weapons but 'battlefield tools' by a variety of powers which have hugely detrimental effects for both local environment and population [i am thinking here, chiefly of US use of Agent Orange in Vietnam as a defoliant - which, obviously, the virus used on Tallarn is ... along with everything else; but also of Israeli use of White Phosphorus for the nominal purpose of battlefield illumination in more recent years].

Oh, something else which just occurred to me ... check out this writeup on Ruapekapeka Pa ["The Bat's Nest" fortification]. Basically, the local Maori built a deceptively simple looking yet seriously advanced fortification, in an area of no strategic value, as a deliberate insult to the British - effectively challenging them to come and take it. And then, once the British *did* manage to fight their way in, withdrawing to leave them with an empty prize (with speculation that an ambush was about to be effected which would have been even more costly for the attackers). Remind you of any particular Iron Warriors famous engagements? :P 

Anyway; I don't think it's easily possible to reduce the Iron Warriors' ways of war down to a single army or a single era's historical influence. I also think that it's a considerable misperception to just peg them as "The Siegemasters" (ironic, I know, given that this is exactly how a fairly large swathe of the Imperium's Crusade Command seemed to regard them). Instead, we have a mish-mash of potential flavorings based around largely fairly recent (i.e. last 70-80 years or so) set of technological and tactical employments. 

Perhaps the Legion's noted salience of praevians might invoke the 21st century's newfound emphasis upon drones :P 

[Kais Klip]

Now I'm blessed with two of these boys. As a brother once said, the walls of text in this topic will come to be legendary. 

 

I remember reading a few threads back, to echo your historical middle eastern point, Ryltar, that there seemed to be a parallel between Iron Warriors and ancient Assyrian tactics, namely that of using the largest armies the world has ever seen, as well as a predeliction to ruling via satrapies (IW preferred mode of governance in 40k). Would you care to expand on this Assyrian analogue? Or would it be closer to pre-fall Word Bearer tactics, what with their predilection towards numbers and strong morale (and if so, it would seem to be the only thing mentioned about the strategic tendencies of the XVII legion).

[Blender123]

As a SoH player, I cannot belive I have never drawn a parallel to Hannibal and Carthage. Also I always assumed the iconography to be drawn from Egyptian sources plus the name 'Horus'. However much of the aesthetics of Carthagninian symbols are shared with Egyptian things. Ineresting insight.

[Marshal Rohr]

Drawing those specific parallels and insinuating they were somehow intentionally used as inspiration for the Iron Warriors doesn't really click. The Iron Cage lore predates the Israeli conflict you mentioned by two or three years. The idea of a fortress portion being a false prize was part of Vauban's brilliance, and the siege of Europe would be the natural bias for inspiration from a European company writer.

 

A larger issue with this is that tactics and strategy is almost entirely universal. You will always find what you're looking for when you view the record after the fact. A standard rifle platoon enveloping a Taliban position from two sides isn't intentionally channeling Hannibal, I guarentee they were preoccupied with other concerns. They do it because it's natural decision and movement for people to make.

 

There was once a poster here that suggested that it didn't make sense for a certain character to use an ax, because axes 'are slower than swords', lifted directly from the game guide to choosing Skyrim weapons for your character. We should be careful to avoid video game mechanic logic when discussing historical or strategic inspiration. It's like the idea attacking an enemy from the side is always effective, and that's not the case at all. Many times dividing your forces to attempt a double envelopment actually isolates your fighting strength into weaker elements, hence the saying 'divide and conquer'. So definitely ignore pretty much any tactic or strategy derived from a mathematical formula devised to make a game function.

 

My final thought: too often we hear things like '40k is World War One tactics fought with medieval weapons in space' and that's a good way to break in a new hobbyist, but it's a poor understanding of how these conflicts would play out. You see people refer to space marines are heavy infantry, and they are not, they are light infantry. Heavy infantry rides in armored vehicles. Space marines are, however, shock infantry. And the principles of shock infantry are the same for a Roman legion as they are for a US marine or German trench raider. Calling marines heavy infantry is that video game logic creeping back into the descriptions just because they wear power armor. Tactical and strategic principles are unaffected by any supernatural or science fiction elements.

 

To that end, there is no historical military doctrine that can be tied to any modern or legion fighting force in 30k. All the things mentioned and explained previously in the thread are present in every Legion, as most things are present in our modern life. Just because the Imperium culturally prefers to use swords, and demons can walk through walls doesn't make the way you deploy and use artillery any different or the way you set up a crew served weapon change.

[Kais Klip]

Drawing those specific parallels and insinuating they were somehow intentionally used as inspiration for the Iron Warriors doesn't really click. The Iron Cage lore predates the Israeli conflict you mentioned by two or three years. The idea of a fortress portion being a false prize was part of Vauban's brilliance, and the siege of Europe would be the natural bias for inspiration from a European company writer.

A larger issue with this is that tactics and strategy is almost entirely universal. You will always find what you're looking for when you view the record after the fact. A standard rifle platoon enveloping a Taliban position from two sides isn't intentionally channeling Hannibal, I guarentee they were preoccupied with other concerns. They do it because it's natural decision and movement for people to make.

There was once a poster here that suggested that it didn't make sense for a certain character to use an ax, because axes 'are slower than swords', lifted directly from the game guide to choosing Skyrim weapons for your character. We should be careful to avoid video game mechanic logic when discussing historical or strategic inspiration. It's like the idea attacking an enemy from the side is always effective, and that's not the case at all. Many times dividing your forces to attempt a double envelopment actually isolates your fighting strength into weaker elements, hence the saying 'divide and conquer'. So definitely ignore pretty much any tactic or strategy derived from a mathematical formula devised to make a game function.

My final thought: too often we hear things like '40k is World War One tactics fought with medieval weapons in space' and that's a good way to break in a new hobbyist, but it's a poor understanding of how these conflicts would play out. You see people refer to space marines are heavy infantry, and they are not, they are light infantry. Heavy infantry rides in armored vehicles. Space marines are, however, shock infantry. And the principles of shock infantry are the same for a Roman legion as they are for a US marine or German trench raider. Calling marines heavy infantry is that video game logic creeping back into the descriptions just because they wear power armor. Tactical and strategic principles are unaffected by any supernatural or science fiction elements.

To that end, there is no historical military doctrine that can be tied to any modern or legion fighting force in 30k. All the things mentioned and explained previously in the thread are present in every Legion, as most things are present in our modern life. Just because the Imperium culturally prefers to use swords, and demons can walk through walls doesn't make the way you deploy and use artillery any different or the way you set up a crew served weapon change.

Disagree on all of that.

The Israeli example, not to mention the Maori one, was actually most entertaining, I never thought a force like the Hezbollah would scare the IDF enough for the latter to impose a do-not-approach policy, especially through only fortifications (and you really should read the wiki). I got the bitterness stick just imagining those steel doors.

"Hanibbal" tactics utilize cavalry. Modern ATGM developments very credibly threaten the existence of armour (modern cavalry) platoons at all; at the very least, the space of separation between the armour asset, and the infantry platoon assigned to protect them (read: walk a kilometre in front of the tank and look for ATGMs) increases dramatically. Thus, using your armour assets to flank the enemy, wouldn't actually take away that much from your overall force. I do agree with you, however, if we are talking about using a portion of your infantry force to flank the enemy. Again, this is not the case in modern times, as a single machinegun can pin down many times it's number, so the otherwise useless riflemen (they're only there for ablative wounds ) can now attempt to flank.

And yet, the logic found in game mechanics tends to at least follow the theme of real life example. An axe is disadvantageous (the one point I'd grant you is that the hammer is actually more maneuverable than the axe, while delivering "stronger" trauma) because, at its core, it's unwieldy. That should remind you of something. If not, than it definitely is when compared to the balanced sword. If you would like a more in-deph approach, just check out the 40k RPG, Dark Heresy's, approach to melee weapons.

I also disagree on your last, and hopefully most important point there.

First, just to get the terminology out of the way; yes, Astartes would be light infantry employed in the shock, Panzergrenadier role. This is despite that the fact that Rhinos are technically APCs, (the only IFVs in the game are Devilfish and Falcons, IIRC) and APCs do well to stay out of any battlefield (ie our 6x4 table), so we shouldn't be seeing Rhinos at all.

The problem comes in when you introduce power armour. You'll notice a modern parallel shown on the tabletop; 5+ vs 5+ guard slugfests are always fought at arm's length, like today's conflicts. However, throw a 3+ save there, and suddenly your troops can maneuver into the open even under enemy fire; you simply wont be taking enough casualties to warrant staying in the position of cover that a 5+ unit would have to stay in or face annihilation.

Thus, we can deduce that the introduction of reliable, 66%+ "save" for infantry, as well as a Marine's re-constitutional abilities (where most of your casualties would actually be ready to fight the next fight, a la Lt. Col. A Tack Always' troops in Defense of Hill 781), would change up infantry roles in combat quite dramatically. The symbiotic relationship between infantry and armoured platoons would continue, except that the infantry would become significantly more durable, and thus a significantly bigger threat to armoured assets, given sufficient equipment. This would in turn force your armour to continue a longer way behind the infantry; therefore leading the way for largely infantry-centric forces to engage each other, with limited support from armoured assets from afar (ie off the board, ie my preferred version of 40k).

Thus, as I put forward, we would be back to a musket mentality; shooting is still king yes (just like 7th edition), but melee is still heavily predominant. If this reminds you of our little tabletop game, good, you've been paying attention.

To say we cannot apply modern tactical approaches to warfare, to the 30th millennium is disingenuous. To say operational, let alone strategic (which have remained the same for thousands of years) approaches cannot apply would be completely foolish (not that you did). It is as it has always been. Crush your enemy via a variety of methods which are all variations of approaches to achieving one thing: superior local force disposition. Whether this is having more guys than him at the center, more guys than him at his flank, or simply putting a tank in front of his guys.

The introduction of guns has not changed the tactical approach to a situation. First we were at sword length, then at spear length, then at pike length, now we are at 750 metres length. Fixing a force, be it via a phalanx or a machine gun, and attacking his vulnerable side (flanking him or bombing him with artillery), is as basic tenant of combat today as it is was then. And it will be as long as we fight. The only thing that changes is the superiority of ranged arms to armour. Before us, the latter was dominant. For us, the former is at the forefront. For 30/40k, the latter once more. Whenever armour is superior to ranged approaches, getting close within shiving range will always be relevant. As it is for a kitchen-armed guerrilla fighter rushing a tank to force a banana down its exhaust pipe, so it is for an Astartes against an Astartes. Somewhere out there, somewhen, a World Eater will kill someone with a fruit.

As I pointed out, I only have superficial knowledge on the subjected, but to my mind, it is clear in our HH black books, the Night Lord strategic approach to warfare is a focus on the Defeat in Detail school of strategic thought, as opposed to Set Piece, Attack-the-Centre approaches.

Yes, 40k Astartes would not belong in a game like Wargame: Red Dragon, short of simple drop troops. The case in 30k however, is notably different. Astartes become your light infantry, which definitely changes the name of the game, but the overall modern theme (principles of combined arms, maneuver and strategic force allocation) continues to hold merit.

To bring it back on topic, taking the easy example of the Gulf War, how would it change if it was undertaken by a Legion, against another Legion? By not much in my opinion, to be honest. An Astartes force against Imperial Army? Completely different beast. But I think it's only when you pit the Legions against each other, that you truly understand their approaches. Which is why I'd like the military buffs to take this on. Again, I'm not asking who they are, that's been covered hundreds of times, rather, how do they wage war?

Edit: Check out my OP edit. It completely flew over my head to simply throw Epic right into this discussion. Surely you're not telling me modern warfare approaches are not applicable to an Epic game?

That's pretty much where I'd like to take this discussion from now on, to make it slightly more accessible: what Legiones Astartes/RoW would each legion get, for a game of Titanicus/Epic 30k? This gets us away from how a legion plays airsoft (40k), to how it wages modern mechanized war (Epic).

[Indefragable]

So...this might not be entirely what you're looking for, and slips into some subjectivity, but here goes:

For me, the Blood Angels remind me of 20th Century US Marines (USMC).

Hidden Content

-focus on close combat. Relatively speaking, anyways: while the modern USMC does not actually swing swords around, their focus (all things being equal) is often about getting as close-in to the enemy as possible. Hence their frequent use in urban assaults. Modern close-in fighting is some of the most dangerous out there and the USMC makes it a point of pride to be as adept as possible at it.

-....the above being said, they still actually train with bayonets. And not just the standard training every military gets, but there is an actual emphasis on skill with it. Supposedly, there are only two ways US Marines measure each other up: marksmanship badge and MCMAP (martial arts) belt level.

-the other analogue would also be the USMC focus on individual marksmanship. Most military units rely on volume of fire, but since their formation in the late 18th Century, the USMC has placed an above-average emphasis on marksmanship. While other forces are obviously a bit more gun-centric (Imperial Fists?) on the surface, to me this sort of translates into Encarmine Fury in the sense that pound-for-pound, they both strive to hit harder than the other guy. Again, this is war we're talking about, so it's not quite that cut-and-dry, but you get the idea.

-historical use as shock troops: clearing Pacific Islands, "small wars" where only a handful of troops were available, Belleau Wood

-an indoctrinated mentality of aggression: always attack whenever possible; the only way off the beach is through the enemy

-emphasis on close-air support (Jump Packs and when the Stormravens were BA - exclusive): "flying" tanks rather than rolling tanks (though both BA and USMC obvious have those as well)

- Feel No Pain

-red

It may not be the most clear-cut analogy, but those similarities are what I saw and part of what led me to Baal.

[Kais Klip]

So...this might not be entirely what you're looking for, and slips into some subjectivity, but here goes:

For me, the Blood Angels remind me of 20th Century US Marines (USMC).

Hidden Content

-focus on close combat. Relatively speaking, anyways: while the modern USMC does not actually swing swords around, their focus (all things being equal) is often about getting as close-in to the enemy as possible. Hence their frequent use in urban assaults. Modern close-in fighting is some of the most dangerous out there and the USMC makes it a point of pride to be as adept as possible at it.

-....the above being said, they still actually train with bayonets. And not just the standard training every military gets, but there is an actual emphasis on skill with it. Supposedly, there are only two ways US Marines measure each other up: marksmanship badge and MCMAP (martial arts) belt level.

-the other analogue would also be the USMC focus on individual marksmanship. Most military units rely on volume of fire, but since their formation in the late 18th Century, the USMC has placed an above-average emphasis on marksmanship. While other forces are obviously a bit more gun-centric (Imperial Fists?) on the surface, to me this sort of translates into Encarmine Fury in the sense that pound-for-pound, they both strive to hit harder than the other guy. Again, this is war we're talking about, so it's not quite that cut-and-dry, but you get the idea.

-historical use as shock troops: clearing Pacific Islands, "small wars" where only a handful of troops were available, Belleau Wood

-an indoctrinated mentality of aggression: always attack whenever possible; the only way off the beach is through the enemy

-emphasis on close-air support (Jump Packs and when the Stormravens were BA - exclusive): "flying" tanks rather than rolling tanks (though both BA and USMC obvious have those as well)

- Feel No Pain

-red

It may not be the most clear-cut analogy, but those similarities are what I saw and part of what led me to Baal.

A fair approach, Indefragable (love the name), and an appreciated one.

To play along, albeit this is a more narrower approach than what I'm looking for, I particularly like your weight-of-fire analogue. Except I would say your vaunted USMC are in fact best represented by the Imperial Fists (+1BS and close combat skills where it matters, MCMAP being a joke or not), while the ruskie cold war approach to mass fire would be, oh look, Iron Warriors, who really should get an extra turn of shooting with their bolters outside of assault.

It may be bias, as Marshal Rohr points out, but we're starting to see a few correlations here. And considering this whole thing is just another way of seeing identify within the legions as relative to one another, this is good.

[apologist]

Apologist, you just carried the day mate. I can't thank you enough for that brilliant write up. My follow on question may be away from your area of expertise, so if you could answer one more;

My pleasure – though I hasten to add I have no qualifications beyond personal interest! As a general note, I think it's worth pointing out that pop-culture tropes are as important as genuine historical fact to all of 40k – the writers are often very clever and well-read, but they also clearly like a bit of fun: Rule of cool trumps all

With those provisos:

What would you quintessentially characterize as the "greek" method of war? If we had to pinpoint it further, specifically that inflexible one of the Spartans? Cautious, disciplined, extremely durable both morale wise and armour wise, but perhaps intractable and unadaptable?

Why was the Phalanx such a success? It was, at root, no different from the spear and shield warfare across much of the Ancient world. The Hellenes (Greeks) of the period – and especially the Lacadaemonians (Spartans) – represented the zenith of the concept. Fundamentally, they did it better than anyone else. This was due to a number of reasons, but at core, it was due to:

1 Surplus: The development of the City-state allowed leisure time, which led in turn to surplus and cooperation.

2 Practise: Broadly speaking, all ancient warriors were part-time; but the surplus allowed for regular drill and practise.

3 Technology and adaptability: Extra time and practise led to technological development. Longer spears meant more ranks actively fighting, and further for the enemy to go while being attacked. The hoplon shield was heavy and awkward, but fantastic at defence. The Greeks altered the Phalanx and individual equipment as times dictated.

4 Morale: The Greek world was unlike many others at the time in being internally competitive and antagonistic, from the city-state level to the region as a whole. This led to tribalism, but also (eventually) mutual support in the face of larger threats.

At its height after the Peloponnesian war (between Sparta and its allies and Athens and its allies), Sparta took all of the above to their practical limits. By utilising the surplus to allow a dedicated warrior caste, and supporting them with political will and social approbation, the Spartan war machine basically did everything a little bit better than their competitors. The end result wasn't happy – a reliance on such an exclusive elite made replacement time-consuming and impractical, and eventually their way of life was out-competed by more nimble adaptable cultures, like the Athenians.

I'd characterise the Ancient Greek way of war as conservative and inward-looking; full of hubris, but undoubtedly effective. This was as much as result of their cultural values as anything: because the Hellenes valued the City-states rather than individuals, it was relatively easier to generate support and idealism. However, that's off the battlefield. On a practical level, I'd broadly agree with your analysis.

To take it further (I'm an obvious laconophile at this point), if you had to give them Legiones Astartes rules, what would they look like?

For a Legion of 'Space Spartans'? As mentioned, I think it's important to bring in a big of pop culture to leaven the historical 'weight', so I'd caricature a little.

In rules terms, I'd give a few bonuses for being base-to-base – perhaps granting slow-and-purposeful to represent the slow, steady march of the Phalanx and granting re-rolls of 1s to hit. To balance, I'd make the list more inflexible – perhaps by requiring full-size squads, and by increasing the number of compulsory troops to 3 or 4. That would be a soft encouragement for Breachers (as you'd need a hell of a lot of Legion Tacticals otherwise! ), and help to reflect the over-reliance on heavy infantry.

I'd buy you an internet cookie for a Rite of War.

Well, that's fairly simple – allowing Cataphractii Terminators as scoring troops, giving furious charge in the opponent's half and counter-attack in the friendly half. I think that'd give the sense of over-reliance on super-elites; as you'd require thirty Terminators at a minimum.

How would you balance their sense of... laconic prudence and pragmatism, with the critical lack of adaptability when it came to the wider methods of waging war (vs say, a maniple system). And how would they be different from the Athenians, or more specifically the Epirans (since now I'm really thinking Epirus in space).

The rules suggestions above would come with quite a few critical weaknesses; you could further tweak it by requiring a non-compulsory Troops choice to access successive 'slots' in every other force org position – so you'd need four troops to take two Fast Attack, for example.

How would they be different from the Athenians and Epirot forces? Neither of them are as inherently distinct as the Spartans – hence why the Epirots haven't entered pop culture. For that reason, I think the Ultramarines' rules are pretty close to the more adaptable approaches of these cultures.

I'm very attracted to the idea of the tactical, out-of-age underdog beating the maniple system of the Romans, so I'm trying to pin down what approach a (Epiran) Iron warriors force would take to defeat the more flexible Ultramarine legion. In a set battle, that is.

The Phalanx had a couple of fundamental weaknesses: the flanks (particuarly the right flank, owing to the asymmetical way of using the shield) were hideously vulnerable, and the unbroken line meant that it struggled to keep cohesion across varied terrain and making retreat or redeployment all but impossible. In contrast, the later Roman Legions broke into a chequerboard formation, with fresh troops able to be cycled in.

However, it was far from bad. The high point of the Hoplite way of war had densely-packed troops that were all but impregnable from the front – hence why the battle of Thermopylae (the famed 'Hot Gates' of 300) was so costly for the Persians. In the right terrain – a high-walled valley – the Phalanx would have taken away many of the Romans' advantages, and matched their strengths. Assuming the Epirotes' line held, their larger number of archers – safely protected behind the Phalanx – would have eventually told. Of course, that requires quite a few assumptions!

Pyrrhus did fight the Romans, so we can look at that. The Battle of Asculum is a good example of the similarities and differences of the Roman and Greek ways of war – compare the number of auxiliaries, and the innovative tactics the Romans used to counter the Epirotes' elephants; but do bear in mind that the period we're looking at here is not the high point of either approach that we've been discussing. Nevertheless, a good example of how an excellent general with a slightly inferior army can defeat a slight superior army with poorer leadership.

As for my more modern question, does modern warfare really change your example that much? Modern armour and artillery systems have been compared to cavalry and the artillery of the past, but would the legion approach change with the introduction of power armour that perhaps frees up some survivability for what once was light (now heavy) infantry? Surely modern tactics like light arm suppression wouldn't be as effective, and we would revert back to a more Musket-era 50% range 50% charge enviroment. Just like we see on the tabletop (with a slight preference towards shooting, as in reality back then).

Possibly not – but I wanted to look at things 'through an ancient lens', as I think that best represents the inspiration behind a lot of 40k. I don't know a huge amount about modern warfare, but I'd suggest that tank blitzkrieg is perhaps the nearest equivalent. Just imagine tanks being infantry mobile and only the size of a very large man, and you suddenly see why space marines would be so terrifying.

[Marshal Rohr]

Drawing those specific parallels and insinuating they were somehow intentionally used as inspiration for the Iron Warriors doesn't really click. The Iron Cage lore predates the Israeli conflict you mentioned by two or three years. The idea of a fortress portion being a false prize was part of Vauban's brilliance, and the siege of Europe would be the natural bias for inspiration from a European company writer.

A larger issue with this is that tactics and strategy is almost entirely universal. You will always find what you're looking for when you view the record after the fact. A standard rifle platoon enveloping a Taliban position from two sides isn't intentionally channeling Hannibal, I guarentee they were preoccupied with other concerns. They do it because it's natural decision and movement for people to make.

There was once a poster here that suggested that it didn't make sense for a certain character to use an ax, because axes 'are slower than swords', lifted directly from the game guide to choosing Skyrim weapons for your character. We should be careful to avoid video game mechanic logic when discussing historical or strategic inspiration. It's like the idea attacking an enemy from the side is always effective, and that's not the case at all. Many times dividing your forces to attempt a double envelopment actually isolates your fighting strength into weaker elements, hence the saying 'divide and conquer'. So definitely ignore pretty much any tactic or strategy derived from a mathematical formula devised to make a game function.

My final thought: too often we hear things like '40k is World War One tactics fought with medieval weapons in space' and that's a good way to break in a new hobbyist, but it's a poor understanding of how these conflicts would play out. You see people refer to space marines are heavy infantry, and they are not, they are light infantry. Heavy infantry rides in armored vehicles. Space marines are, however, shock infantry. And the principles of shock infantry are the same for a Roman legion as they are for a US marine or German trench raider. Calling marines heavy infantry is that video game logic creeping back into the descriptions just because they wear power armor. Tactical and strategic principles are unaffected by any supernatural or science fiction elements.

To that end, there is no historical military doctrine that can be tied to any modern or legion fighting force in 30k. All the things mentioned and explained previously in the thread are present in every Legion, as most things are present in our modern life. Just because the Imperium culturally prefers to use swords, and demons can walk through walls doesn't make the way you deploy and use artillery any different or the way you set up a crew served weapon change.

Disagree on all of that.

The Israeli example, not to mention the Maori one, was actually most entertaining, I never thought a force like the Hezbollah would scare the IDF enough for the latter to impose a do-not-approach policy, especially through only fortifications (and you really should read the wiki). I got the bitterness stick just imagining those steel doors.

"Hanibbal" tactics utilize cavalry. Modern ATGM developments very credibly threaten the existence of armour (modern cavalry) platoons at all; at the very least, the space of separation between the armour asset, and the infantry platoon assigned to protect them (read: walk a kilometre in front of the tank and look for ATGMs) increases dramatically. Thus, using your armour assets to flank the enemy, wouldn't actually take away that much from your overall force. I do agree with you, however, if we are talking about using a portion of your infantry force to flank the enemy. Again, this is not the case in modern times, as a single machinegun can pin down many times it's number, so the otherwise useless riflemen (they're only there for ablative wounds ) can now attempt to flank.

And yet, the logic found in game mechanics tends to at least follow the theme of real life example. An axe is disadvantageous (the one point I'd grant you is that the hammer is actually more maneuverable than the axe, while delivering "stronger" trauma) because, at its core, it's unwieldy. That should remind you of something. If not, than it definitely is when compared to the balanced sword. If you would like a more in-deph approach, just check out the 40k RPG, Dark Heresy's, approach to melee weapons.

I also disagree on your last, and hopefully most important point there.

First, just to get the terminology out of the way; yes, Astartes would be light infantry employed in the shock, Panzergrenadier role. This is despite that the fact that Rhinos are technically APCs, (the only IFVs in the game are Devilfish and Falcons, IIRC) and APCs do well to stay out of any battlefield (ie our 6x4 table), so we shouldn't be seeing Rhinos at all.

The problem comes in when you introduce power armour. You'll notice a modern parallel shown on the tabletop; 5+ vs 5+ guard slugfests are always fought at arm's length, like today's conflicts. However, throw a 3+ save there, and suddenly your troops can maneuver into the open even under enemy fire; you simply wont be taking enough casualties to warrant staying in the position of cover that a 5+ unit would have to stay in or face annihilation.

Thus, we can deduce that the introduction of reliable, 66%+ "save" for infantry, as well as a Marine's re-constitutional abilities (where most of your casualties would actually be ready to fight the next fight, a la Lt. Col. A Tack Always' troops in Defense of Hill 781), would change up infantry roles in combat quite dramatically. The symbiotic relationship between infantry and armoured platoons would continue, except that the infantry would become significantly more durable, and thus a significantly bigger threat to armoured assets, given sufficient equipment. This would in turn force your armour to continue a longer way behind the infantry; therefore leading the way for largely infantry-centric forces to engage each other, with limited support from armoured assets from afar (ie off the board, ie my preferred version of 40k).

Thus, as I put forward, we would be back to a musket mentality; shooting is still king yes (just like 7th edition), but melee is still heavily predominant. If this reminds you of our little tabletop game, good, you've been paying attention.

To say we cannot apply modern tactical approaches to warfare, to the 30th millennium is disingenuous. To say operational, let alone strategic (which have remained the same for thousands of years) approaches cannot apply would be completely foolish (not that you did). It is as it has always been. Crush your enemy via a variety of methods which are all variations of approaches to achieving one thing: superior local force disposition. Whether this is having more guys than him at the center, more guys than him at his flank, or simply putting a tank in front of his guys.

The introduction of guns has not changed the tactical approach to a situation. First we were at sword length, then at spear length, then at pike length, now we are at 750 metres length. Fixing a force, be it via a phalanx or a machine gun, and attacking his vulnerable side (flanking him or bombing him with artillery), is as basic tenant of combat today as it is was then. And it will be as long as we fight. The only thing that changes is the superiority of ranged arms to armour. Before us, the latter was dominant. For us, the former is at the forefront. For 30/40k, the latter once more. Whenever armour is superior to ranged approaches, getting close within shiving range will always be relevant. As it is for a kitchen-armed guerrilla fighter rushing a tank to force a banana down its exhaust pipe, so it is for an Astartes against an Astartes. Somewhere out there, somewhen, a World Eater will kill someone with a fruit.

As I pointed out, I only have superficial knowledge on the subjected, but to my mind, it is clear in our HH black books, the Night Lord strategic approach to warfare is a focus on the Defeat in Detail school of strategic thought, as opposed to Set Piece, Attack-the-Centre approaches.

Yes, 40k Astartes would not belong in a game like Wargame: Red Dragon, short of simple drop troops. The case in 30k however, is notably different. Astartes become your light infantry, which definitely changes the name of the game, but the overall modern theme (principles of combined arms, maneuver and strategic force allocation) continues to hold merit.

To bring it back on topic, taking the easy example of the Gulf War, how would it change if it was undertaken by a Legion, against another Legion? By not much in my opinion, to be honest. An Astartes force against Imperial Army? Completely different beast. But I think it's only when you pit the Legions against each other, that you truly understand their approaches. Which is why I'd like the military buffs to take this on. Again, I'm not asking who they are, that's been covered hundreds of times, rather, how do they wage war?

Edit: Check out my OP edit. It completely flew over my head to simply throw Epic right into this discussion. Surely you're not telling me modern warfare approaches are not applicable to an Epic game?

That's pretty much where I'd like to take this discussion from now on, to make it slightly more accessible: what Legiones Astartes/RoW would each legion get, for a game of Titanicus/Epic 30k? This gets us away from how a legion plays airsoft (40k), to how it wages modern mechanized war (Epic).

You misunderstand, this is a civilization that has orbital superiority and the ability to convert neural signals into binary and blast that into a cloud network connecting everything from helmet cams on auxilia to a Legionaries heartbeat monitor. If anything, their information warfare doctrine will be miles beyond anything we can comprehend. They will be operating on a military doctrine that is more advanced than our own. What I'm saying is the preference to human wave attacks and fighting with swords and bayonets is a cultural anachronism of the Imperium.

Getting around the enemy is a tactic, a 'Cannae double envelopment' is a maneuver. The hunter gatherers who attacked big animals on both sides weren't performing a Cannae double envelopment, they were being efficient by attacking a large animal from a stronger position (its side). If you and two friends want to jump one guy, it's your friend on either of the blind spots that will probably kill the dude, not you in the front. That principle of attacking where an enemy is weaker is universal, and transcends bronze aged warfare to modern smart warfare. The usefulness of cover in power armor is a tactical consideration, Ive discussed at length on this board, in well aware of its effects. The point you're missing is that cover is an environmental consideration at the tactical level. It is not, in anyway shape or form, a strategy. A tactic is what you do in the moment, a strategy is a long term shifting plan of action to achieve a goal.

Back to the game mechanic aspect, I think you'll find those abstractions are used to create game environments and have no basis in what would really work in really world. Power armor is great, but to try and say it's equivalent to body armor able to withstand 66% of impact trauma isn't accurate. To say a hammer is unwieldy becauae it's balanced differently from a sword is another abstractive concept that is more for games than real life.

Take this example. Ive seen lots of people say 7.62 is a more powerful round than 5.56. Sure, it's bigger but a 5.56 is harder to fix because it tumbles through the body in a situation a 7.62 might punch a clean hole. Both are relatively accurate at modern firefight distances, but an M14 might perform better at longer distances than a SCAR fitted for 7.62. A shooter might be having an off day because his dog is sick, and may royally screw up a competition to see which rifle is more accurate at 500m. A helicopter pilot with a stellar record might get distracted because his wife left him and miss all his targets, that doesn't mean the Hind is a better helicopter. A neckbeard who spent six years studying samurai sword martial arts might get his butt kicked by a crossfitter with a sledge hammer because the crossfitter is in better shape. Abstractions are reductive and don't account for the human condition, which is why probability is used to randomize those factors.

We are discussing this subject away from that abstract paradigm, going by your original post. Things like breacher shields don't make Legionaries use Roman shield Wall tactics. They might follow similar principles, call them the same thing, but the fundamentals are different because artillery exists. That's my point I think you're missing. There is a universal applicativeness that can't be exclusive to one style of doctrine. The theory underlying a Greek phalanx are still the theories underlying the use of a modern infantry company, but the fundamentals are different.

[Marshal Rohr]

I'm having a hard time articulating my point, so that's probably the root of the misunderstanding.

[depthcharge12]

I believe I mentioned this to Rohr, but I actually saw the Death Guard as a USMC analog. 

 

Infantry equipped to the teeth to deal with any and all threats? check

 

Infantry centric military supported by, not supporting, armor elements and man packed artillery? check

 

Close range assault gun fights? check

 

Dusk raiders allude to wars fought at dusk and dawn, just like USMC combat tradition? check

 

 

Of course there may be overlaps in other militaries, however, the description of the Death Guard are very reminiscent of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

 

 

Emperor's Children and Dark Angels are likely very close analogs to modern militaries as well. Night Lords feel like Space Vietcong, Raven Guard like modern special forces, and Alpha Legion as Space Green Berets/CIA.

 

I'd characterize the Iron Warriors more like Soviet era Russian battle tactics. Infantry Waves - penal battalions/WWII zerg rushes. Rhino infantry rushes - modern Russian BTR brigades. Etc.

[Calas Typhon]

I believe I mentioned this to Rohr, but I actually saw the Death Guard as a USMC analog. 

 

Infantry equipped to the teeth to deal with any and all threats? check

 

Infantry centric military supported by, not supporting, armor elements and man packed artillery? check

 

Close range assault gun fights? check

 

Dusk raiders allude to wars fought at dusk and dawn, just like USMC combat tradition? check

 

 

Of course there may be overlaps in other militaries, however, the description of the Death Guard are very reminiscent of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

 

 

Emperor's Children and Dark Angels are likely very close analogs to modern militaries as well. Night Lords feel like Space Vietcong, Raven Guard like modern special forces, and Alpha Legion as Space Green Berets/CIA.

 

I'd characterize the Iron Warriors more like Soviet era Russian battle tactics. Infantry Waves - penal battalions/WWII zerg rushes. Rhino infantry rushes - modern Russian BTR brigades. Etc.

 

You could apply that to most marines though. It speaks more of German/British WW1 Grenadiers than it does USMC.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

The Iron Hands' RoW: Head of the Gorgon speaks to an armored and mechanized task force conducting a small-scale envelopment. Whether you want to compare that to Hannibal at Cannae or Rommel at Mersa Matruh is, I suppose, up to you.

[Laughingman]

The Alpha legion cloak and dagger approach to warfare reminds me of  Israeli duvdevan / shin bet / mossad operations before drones warfare became common.

[Laughingman]

Since people brought it up I would venture to guess that the imperium's affinity for anachronistic mass charges has it roots in unification, Old Night I suspect destroyed much of the Terra industrial ability to make heavy weapons, thus the thunder warriors (as well as there mortal auxiliaries) relied on close combat to win engagements. This attitude and tradition outlived unification and persisted into the modern Imperium.

[b1soul]

The White Scars are culturally Mongol but their battlefield behaviour is more like that of non-Mongol, less disciplined Central Asian nomad forces, e.g. the Huns, the Cumans, the Kipchaks

 

Historically, iron discipline was a trait of the Mongol Army under Genghis