How much artillery does the imperial guard use?

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name	4Gzoqa)
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1722209931834.jpeg (Spoiler Image,67.56 KB, 600x379, IMG_0506.jpeg)

How much artillery does the imperial guard use? Anonymous 28-07-24 23:38:52 No.37006

It’s often been a long running joke in the war hammer community that the imperial guard is an army composed of a bunch of drones sent to die in waves against hell itself, but this alas is just a joke. Based off the writing, it’s known that the guard use ww2 era soviet tactics where a focus on gaining numerical and firepower superiority through clever positioning and logistics is prioritized above all else. That’s not to say that the guard never end up with shitty generals, but that it’s rare for most of the guard’s army to send off its infantrymen to die without expending an unholy amount of resources on artillery, mines, and traps first beforehand to save numbers.
That posits a question. How much does the guard truly rely on artillery and indirect fire to win their wars? Are all guardsmen really still stuck in the WW2 era of relying heavily on artillery and mobilized infantry to win all their conflicts?

Anonymous 28-07-24 23:41:57 No.37007

>>37006
I mean the whole universe of 40k is stuck in WW2 era tactics so yeah. Otherwise you couldn't have setpiece battles. It's pointless to try ascribe logic to it.

Anonymous 28-07-24 23:53:58 No.37008

>>37007
I mean is that situation most factions are in a natural byproduct of direct warfare between major powers than it is a byproduct of societal decline? Like fuck, a war between the eldar and the humans isn’t going to be a clear asymmetrical conflict completely clean of any stalemates, atrocities, or unecessary complications in logistics.

Anonymous 29-07-24 00:22:47 No.37009

>>37008
All sides have planet killer weapons, there shouldn't even be any land based combat. Even if there was, it should just be decided by air power or orbital bombardment

Anonymous 29-07-24 01:03:12 No.37010

>>37009
>as if the logistics and practicality of WMDs in the real world already disproves the idea of the need to escalate warfare to that extreme
Besides it’s not like all those factions don’t already have weapons capable of defending against planet-destroying tech anyways.

Anonymous 29-07-24 01:04:05 No.37011

>>37010
Also, ground forces are necessary to secure land so it may become territory. There’s no point to bombarding everything to kingdom come if you can never step foot on the land that was just conquered.

Anonymous 29-07-24 01:04:57 No.37012

I could only afford 3 basilisks. I did have about 18 heavy weapons teams. Everything else moved forward by foot or by tread.

Anonymous 29-07-24 01:08:00 No.37013

>>37010
>>37011
Orbital control means control over the planet essentially. You can just bombard their facilities until their soldiers all die. The only important battles in 40k should be in space. Landing troops is pointless unless you control space for the long term.

Anonymous 29-07-24 01:15:10 No.37014

>>37013
“Landing troops is pointless unless you control space for the long term.” Tf do you think the point of the galaxy’s wars are? Ignoring the aeldari, every faction is fighting for territory on planets and moons, so they can gain resources, and authority. If the wars these factions were fighting were purely for the sake of fighting, then there wouldn’t be a point in any faction having any ground forces at all. Even the fucking orks were written to have more intelligent reasons for engaging in conflict past “unga bunga, beating humies is funda funda.”

S 29-07-24 02:53:24 No.37016

>>37011
>>37014
You can destroy all the inhabited planets and stations and then you've still plenty of the system free to rsettle, none of the factions seem to fully take advantage of a systems resources. Even then 99% of the materials are in the star so as long as you don't blow that up you're golden.

Unique IPs: 4