40K Online

Main => Background => Topic started by: XCrusaderguy01 on April 8, 2009, 07:39:58 PM

Title: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: XCrusaderguy01 on April 8, 2009, 07:39:58 PM
Warhammer 40k in its own way mirrors bits of history, and it's easy to see the (sometimes) subtle allusions to various cultures and conflicts. History is full of naval combat and various nations vying for dominance at sea, and 40k parallels this with space-based naval combat. But why not with water based naval combat as well?

I understand that in real life, naval warfare and struggles for naval dominance arise out of necessity.  Control of shipping lanes and ports are absolutely vital to the success of a nation. Even if control over water isn't what sparks a conflict, naval warfare is almost inescapable. Ships are required to move large quantities of almost everything (men, machines, supplies, weapons) when a nation is involved in a large scale war, and sinking such convoys are a strategic blow to an enemy. Naval invasions also allow commanders to avoid enemy strongpoints and long campaigns of attrition over land, whiles shore based bombardment and air assets can support ground operations.

40k almost too conveniently sidesteps these problems. Large quantities of men and material can be transported to any point on a planet via space, and space-based landing craft can launch an invasion anywhere they wish. Bombardment, support of ground forces, and even defense of sea-based resources (oil, food, power, etc) can be better accomplished by air and space assets. It seems that the terrestrial, waterborne navies of the real world have been judiciously excluded from the world of Warhammer 40k.

Something about this doesn't fully satisfy me though. The idea of aircraft carriers, submarines, and battleships (Imperial, Astartes, Xeno, etc) duking it out over open water or supporting ground operations is exciting to me. I'd love to see Imperial Superheavy Battleships bristling with baneblade sized turrets, or giant-squid and leviathan-like Tyranid gargantuan bio constructs.

These wouldn't need to be in model form to be cool (although a 40k-scale Imperial Battleship would be quite a sight indeed, and quite a feat for a scratchbuilder! :)), but even a smaller scale aeronautica or BFG-like game of 40k naval combat could be interesting.

So tell me what you think. Can a situation (in a system, on a single specific planet, whatever) be devised such that I can have my Imperial battleships and destroyers roaming the seas hunting for elusive Eldar submarines? Even if you don't think naval combat fits practically into the 40k universe, does it at least seem as cool to you as it does to me? I'm sure there's plenty of other things in the 40k universe that eschew practicality to follow this "Rule of Cool." ;)

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Raktra (So long, I guess) on April 8, 2009, 07:42:12 PM
Yup, against Orks - There has to be some way the Imperium plans to counter Ork Submersibles.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: XCrusaderguy01 on April 8, 2009, 08:27:57 PM
Yup, against Orks - There has to be some way the Imperium plans to counter Ork Submersibles.

Hmm very good point. I'm not familiar with what they use the submersibles for. I assume since I've never heard of any other sort of sea-based vessel of any other race for them to attack or plunder, they must use them strictly for raiding coastal areas. It seems like this would call for a light, maneuverable coastal combined arms patrol with small sub-hunting vessels and shore-based anti-sub air assets. Even if the orks massed subs, it would seem to call for a response like this (many small, depth-charging sub-hunter vessels and aircraft) rather than the flotilla of big-gun battleships that I'm craving.

I think part of the problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be a reason for any faction to seek to control the sea in the first place. Obviously, if the an enemy had a huge armada cruising around there would be need to deal with them. But why would they have done that in the first place? With no shipping to sink, you are left with all the other things that ships can do that space-based assets seem to perform just as well or better.

Perhaps its a matter of efficiency? Modern navies are quite expensive, but compared to space fleets would be (relatively speaking) dirt cheap. Conceivably, guns on the deck of a battleship or missiles launched from a cruiser could be more accurate than orbital bombardment, and much more cost effective. An aircraft carrier would be an easier and cheaper method of carrying and refueling air and spacecraft than trips back and forth from orbit. The only thing I see here though is that ships would be tied to the coasts, with no reason to venture out into more open water.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: The GrimSqueaker on April 8, 2009, 08:33:24 PM
You could imagine some PDFs having naval forces depending on the geographical make up of the place. They're there to counter all threats (including internal ones) hence you could probably get away with some gun units there. When the governor is giving the orders they don't have to always make sense. Merely be obeyed.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Benis on April 9, 2009, 02:28:20 AM
Of course planets with large areas of water will, like Rummy said, probably have PDF naval forces. Imperial Guard probably also have different types of ships they can deploy in case they need it. Forces such as Space Marines and Eldar on the other hand would probably not have such equipment, a Thunderhawk or drop pod can deliver the Space Marines were they need to go and the Falcon/Wave Serpent/Vampire can do the same for Eldar. Given the capacity most forces have for aerial (or better) transport the use of convoys transporting troops or resources are probably unnecessary, but depending on local resources/technology of the world naval ships may be of use.

if you want to convert your own models you could use the Battle Fleet Gothic ruleset for the games since it is quite close to naval combat and you could easily substitute space with sea.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Jehan-Reznor on April 9, 2009, 06:10:58 AM
And it off course depends on the tech evel of the planet, it could range from wooden barges to STD battleship
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Butters on April 9, 2009, 06:28:24 AM
if the imperial guard need transport to a different part of the planet where space and aircraft would be shot down, the sea is most practical way to get there.

also, there is a line in necropolis from gaunt's ghosts where criid remembers seeing rich and snooty people boarding trains at veyveyr railhead to places like the space port city, verghast badport. this implies that space travel is very costly and to justify the cost of plasma (to fuel the ship's engines), the imperium would mainly use them for off world travel.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Benis on April 9, 2009, 07:03:02 AM
also, there is a line in necropolis from gaunt's ghosts where criid remembers seeing rich and snooty people boarding trains at veyveyr railhead to places like the space port city, verghast badport. this implies that space travel is very costly and to justify the cost of plasma (to fuel the ship's engines), the imperium would mainly use them for off world travel.

You don't need to do actual space travel to get from a to b on a planet, given the Imperium has vastly superiour flightcapabilities than we do they could have pan-ocean planes bigger than oiltankers. As for Space Travel and expense, it probably costly but this can also vary widely between planets/systems.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Butters on April 9, 2009, 07:10:49 AM
but in warfare, with all the hydra flak batteries around, unsupported air forays into enemy airspace is akin to suicide.

and if you still think a plane is indestructable, i have a nice job for you that involves protecting a Behemoth bomber convoy.

and if you survive that, enlist in the Elysian Drop Troops. you'll soon learn what it feels like to have a Valkyrie shot out from under you.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Benis on April 9, 2009, 07:54:13 AM
but in warfare, with all the hydra flak batteries around, unsupported air forays into enemy airspace is akin to suicide.

How is that different from naval actions? Ships are even more vulnerable since they are slow moving compared to planes and can thus be targetted by more conventional weapons. And who said they were going to be unsupported? ;)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Butters on April 9, 2009, 09:24:22 AM
are you saying that hydra flak batteries and manticore missile stations aren't 'conventional weapons'?

And who said they were going to be unsupported? ;)

i did. now move along, obviously and unfairly biast anti-naval person.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: dakota on April 9, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
but in warfare, with all the hydra flak batteries around, unsupported air forays into enemy airspace is akin to suicide.

How is that different from naval actions? Ships are even more vulnerable since they are slow moving compared to planes and can thus be targeted by more conventional weapons. And who said they were going to be unsupported? ;)

In many ways aircraft are more vulnerable than surface targets (in this case ships). As they have more elevation they can be shot from ground based weapons systems from further away, and indeed from above by orbital weapons. Sea based military, even in more technological advanced times still represent a highly efficient and safe way to move men and materials around a planet. While a thunderhawk gunship is a massive model in terms of 40k it's smaller, and carries less than a Galaxy-class transport plane we use today.

To fight a full ground war would require thousands of vulnerable fights and a huge outlay of fuel and resources. A safe landing zone would also be required along with depots, staging areas, barracks, ammo dumps etc. Most landing/beach assault ships have this capacity built in. And while resupplying and bolstering a front could be done by air the initial assault would be easier by sea. once a port is secured it can act as a landing zone of both ships and space based resources. Most modern navys merely act as a floating staging area now (although they hate to admit it). 

Looking back at modern conflicts, armies today just can't move enough stuff by air to be effective.

Operation Market Garden air borne assault into France - Fail

Ohama beach - sea based assault into Normandy - Win

Desert storm - Initial artillery and missile strikes all sea based with  almost all material being shipped by sea - Win

Indeed, look at the effort the Imperium goes to to mount titan-class weapons on well... titans. Huge slow moving behemoths that are now impossible for them to produce. The same power generation and weapon capacity would be far more easily mounted on a floating hull producing a truly terrifying battleship. To the same extent, apart from the railway guns of the great wars, the largest ordinance has always been ship mounted.

Anyway, the point being ships are vital to any military invasion. the moving of that much material forces commanders to use the sea. And as this supply line becomes the vulnerable point of a campaign, it would become one of the focus of any action. Unless the conflict involved races with significant anti-grav or teleportation/warp gate technology such as the Eldar or Necrons, the chances are it will have a seaborne aspect.

All this also precludes that the conflict is going to be fought on an yet another earth-type world where maritime assets consist of fishing and oil/gas production - assets of far less importance, and things hardly worth fighting over in the 40K universe. Some planets in the galaxy may have far greater water to land ratios with floating or undersea hive cities and production platforms. One of the reasons space marines fought with bolters in sealed power armour suits was their ability to function in all atmospheres including underwater. 

So, now we come to the problems of a sea based game. The first is that the action is based in a far more three dimensional setting than a standard 40K game. Not only is the sea/board surface important, but so too are submersible units be they submarines, troops, or vehicles travelling on the sea bed. A diver with a chianfist is probably just as much a threat to a ship as a surface based ranged attack. So too are ariel units. skimmers and aircraft are deadly threats to sea based units. How this could be represented would pose quite a problem to any game designer.

How each of the races would approach their naval forces would also be interesting. As already mentioned, the Imperail Guard/PDF would mostly likely command such forces with space marines co-opting such units. Chaos would probably have corrupted ships crews many renegade ships along with ships summoned by dark sorceries such as the Floating Towers of Tzeeentch.

Presumably, there'd be Ork clans that based themselves at sea, with a mix of battleships and submersibles along with Cult of Speed crewed torpedo boats, zodiacs etc. On top of that a grechin manned giant-robot-shark is too good an idea to waste. 

Tyranids would naturally have a whole host of bio-organisms. Indeed, the prospect of converting the majority of a planets bio-mass out of sight in the water would make a marine based attack on a world a primary facet of their invasions. Being able to drop gene-seed pods into the ocean where they'd quicky gestate and hatch into huge leviathans able to support enormas psychic brains that would broadcast the hive mind across the planet. Along with the kraken-like 'Nids would be schools of lesser hunters and predators ready for the command to metamorphose and become amphibious an attack the land. This could give the tyranids a very "Lovecraft-ian" feel with great Cthuliod monsters calling from the deep.

The Eldar and the Dark Eldar might have the technology to circumvent sea travel but not maritime assault. you could assume they would have aspect warriors dedicated to sea shrines or skimmers capable of landing on water.

The Necrons definitely possess the technology not to need waterborne craft, but who said that all their tombs were buried and not sunken? The Monoliths and destroyers would be unaffected by going over water and the warriors have no need to breathe so can travel beneath the waves.     

I'm sorry if this is a bit of a rambling post, but i think like XCrusaderguy01 that a sea based game would be really cool, and would fit into the 40k universe. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Benis on April 9, 2009, 01:20:54 PM
In many ways aircraft are more vulnerable than surface targets (in this case ships). As they have more elevation they can be shot from ground based weapons systems from further away, and indeed from above by orbital weapons. Sea based military, even in more technological advanced times still represent a highly efficient and safe way to move men and materials around a planet. While a thunderhawk gunship is a massive model in terms of 40k it's smaller, and carries less than a Galaxy-class transport plane we use today.

Like I said, the Imperium has vastly superiour capabilities than us when it comes to this kind of technology, they have planes that can operate in space and within an atmosphere, can be launched from a planet's surface and be protected by energy shields. The ships they use to deploy troops from space can most surely be used to deploy troops in any situation that a naval ship could be used, since they are capable to arrive in hot zones. Sure, I bet if Imperial Guard forces actually have naval ships they will be awesome, mounting shield generators and enough firepower to make a Baneblade commander feel silly but the point is that due to their space/aerial technology they can simply use such ships instead.

To fight a full ground war would require thousands of vulnerable fights and a huge outlay of fuel and resources. A safe landing zone would also be required along with depots, staging areas, barracks, ammo dumps etc. Most landing/beach assault ships have this capacity built in. And while resupplying and bolstering a front could be done by air the initial assault would be easier by sea. once a port is secured it can act as a landing zone of both ships and space based resources. Most modern navys merely act as a floating staging area now (although they hate to admit it). 

How is this different from deploying a space vessel to function as a beach head for invasive forces? Surely a space ship with such capabilities would be better since it can easier by pass enemy fortifications and defenses?

Looking back at modern conflicts, armies today just can't move enough stuff by air to be effective.

Again, the technology is so different that you can't really make such comparisons.

Indeed, look at the effort the Imperium goes to to mount titan-class weapons on well... titans. Huge slow moving behemoths that are now impossible for them to produce. The same power generation and weapon capacity would be far more easily mounted on a floating hull producing a truly terrifying battleship. To the same extent, apart from the railway guns of the great wars, the largest ordinance has always been ship mounted.

Titans are still in production but that's off-topic... Titans can only be reliable deployed in situation when you have space superiority or at least space equality (whatever the term is) otherwise you risk your incredible expensive god machines becomes stranded hulks due to incoming bombardments from space, the same would go for naval ships, space ships on the other hand tends to be faster which means less likely to be properly targeted. It would be easier to mount weapons on a naval ship but then again it might not be as useful when the initial coastal area is secure.

Anyway, the point being ships are vital to any military invasion.

Today yes, but you have to consider what the capacity of the Imperium actually is. A single space cruiser could easily lay siege to a world far more advanced than ours, destroying highly protected military targets and mount invasions with any problems. I'm not saying that there doesn't exist situations were naval ships would be superiour I'm simply stating that it is the exception of an exception when that happens.

The Eldar and the Dark Eldar might have the technology to circumvent sea travel but not maritime assault. you could assume they would have aspect warriors dedicated to sea shrines or skimmers capable of landing on water.

Last a question, why would you want to land on water? :)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Awfully Dandy on April 9, 2009, 04:40:55 PM
I can't imagine anyone not using the ocean, it's another tool to be used. But on the otherhand 40k general don't really do stratergy.

I think that the guard would have naval vehicles to allow them to have mobile missle platforms, etc. Immagine a aircraft carrier whic had a couple of maruarder bombers on it. Or insteed a sub eqiped with a short range virus missle (The virus has a small time)

I could imagine the ravenguard landing a underwater vehicle inot the sea and then using it to avoid detection to close in upon a capital city at which point they launch missle pods each with a homer beacon for a nearby terminator assualt. Why don't they do it from orbit you say. Well the planet may have AA guns too strong or even it's own airforce to counter it.


The sea on the other hand. ;)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Sir_Godspeed on April 9, 2009, 06:06:50 PM
I'm all for sea-battles. The idea of a super-duper-mega-heavy battleship brimming with plasma cannons, missile launchers and aircraft is just too damn tempting. :P
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: XCrusaderguy01 on April 9, 2009, 06:54:17 PM
I'm all for sea-battles. The idea of a super-duper-mega-heavy battleship brimming with plasma cannons, missile launchers and aircraft is just too damn tempting. :P

Exactly, I just can't give that up!  ;D

I did actually think of something that ships have that mobile land, air, and small orbital craft really can't provide. This is something I think could actually validate naval conflict in 40k, and it goes back to what ships do best: carrying heavy stuff.

In 40k, the best defended areas are always protected by void shields and anti-starship defensive energy weapons. These things by their very nature are huge (they'd have to be to threaten or repulse a large-scale orbital bombardment), so they are generally housed in static silos defending starports, cities, factories, etc. An invader almost no matter how sophisticated can't bring assets like this with him, nor can a defender move them around to where they are needed, unless he has something large and powerful enough to carry it around.

This is perfect for massive, half-mile long Imperial vessels bear, along with fleets of smaller ships for protection and support. If you think about it, its somewhat the way a modern carrier battlegroup works, but with a more defensive slant. Fleets like this could protect huge stretches of coastline from bombardment, without the need to build massive defensive works in each major city. Furthermore, defensive fleets like this could station themselves at various points in the ocean to threaten ships in orbit. Since they are designed to repulse space-based attacks, the only remaining options would an air attack (unlikely to succeed against a reasonably well-equipped fleet), or a fleet of the enemy's own.  I think this sets the stage for epic 40k fleet battles quite nicely.

Of course, very seldom in 40k is a planet controlled relatively equally by warring factions, as usually the battle lines are drawn between space-based attackers and planetbound defenders. Either the war would need to last long enough for the enemy to establish a foothold for ports and ship assembly, or they would need some way to actually land something like a battleship. Are even the heaviest landing craft close to capable of such a feat?

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Commisar Vlanse on April 9, 2009, 06:54:55 PM
I'm all for sea-battles. The idea of a super-duper-mega-heavy battleship brimming with plasma cannons, missile launchers and aircraft is just too damn tempting. :P
Yes that is to damn tempting. :o
Has anyone played supreme commander? Because in SC it has naval combat.Apparently in the history of the game they have SPACESHIPS!
So, lets say that its guard vs.chaos(traitor guard). The planet is to big Continent's. They contents are separated by water. There is heavy anti-air/anti space cover. what do you do? Call Ghostbus-oops. Sea invasion! 8)
EDIT: Whoa. Crusaderguy said close to the same thing. Ooops. Delete this if you please.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: TDB on April 9, 2009, 07:13:33 PM
Quote
...or they would need some way to actually land something like a battleship. Are even the heaviest landing craft close to capable of such a feat?

Well they developed craft to land titans so it's theoretically possible to have battleship droppers.  I'm not sure i generally see the point, if you can land ships you have some sort of safety in space and can land other things that will likely be more useful in attacking an opponent who is likely to have most of their resources on land.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Quasarcq on April 9, 2009, 07:27:09 PM
I just ran across this thread... very interesting and a subject I have tackled with my own DIY Space Marines Chapter, the Sea Stallions. While the isn't much with basic rule sets that deal with combat that takes place on large bodies of water, fluff-wise the Sea Stallions devote a lot of their strategy to naval warfare. They also work closely with ordos xenos and exchange information regarding ocean xenos threats as well as fighting tyranids beneath the waves.

Some projects for Apoc that I have on the back burner includes creating small 10-man open topped hovercraft, and a larger hovercraft that sort of looks like a US Navy LCAC. This super transport would be capable of transporting two rhino sized vehicles, or three dreadnoughts, or thirty-two troops. One day, oh yes, one day.

As to why 40k doesn't already incorporate the sea/ocean I guess it would just introduce another environmental mechanic that would change the game.

For my own sake, I state that my Chapter Master's orbital strike comes from naval guns or long range missiles from submersibles.

If a world in question is say, about 70% water and an occupying force doesn't control the oceans, then it doesn't control the planet.

(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3173%2F2596791804_127da5c032.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=88d834a2dc6d9610d1b4ab8f44e5510b394c4931)
Bringing a whole new meaning to the term "Deep Strike"
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: XCrusaderguy01 on April 9, 2009, 08:10:20 PM
I just ran across this thread... very interesting and a subject I have tackled with my own DIY Space Marines Chapter, the Sea Stallions. While the isn't much with basic rule sets that deal with combat that takes place on large bodies of water, fluff-wise the Sea Stallions devote a lot of their strategy to naval warfare. They also work closely with ordos xenos and exchange information regarding ocean xenos threats as well as fighting tyranids beneath the waves.

I don't care anymore if naval warfare makes sense. Your space marines are badass.  8)


As to why 40k doesn't already incorporate the sea/ocean I guess it would just introduce another environmental mechanic that would change the game.

The only thing I want to stress is that I'm not advocating any kind of change to the *game* warhammer 40k. Nor am I really even advocating a new sea-based offshoot (although I think it could be cool). All I am going for is some consensus on A) whether or not its a cool idea for fluff and modeling (both of which appear to be a resounding yes), and B) whether or not it makes any sense in the context of the 40k universe (which it appears, with at least a little artistic license it could).

Are those starfish?  :D Awesome.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: TDB on April 9, 2009, 08:20:06 PM
Quote
All I am going for is some consensus on A) whether or not its a cool idea for fluff and modeling (both of which appear to be a resounding yes), and B) whether or not it makes any sense in the context of the 40k universe (which it appears, with at least a little artistic license it could).

A) Yes, it is a good idea for modelling and for fluff (since it is not really covered).

B) It makes perfect sense in the 40k universe.  I don't think it will be used too often in the actual invasion (but it could be depending on the planet) but later on?  Sure.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: The GrimSqueaker on April 9, 2009, 08:53:33 PM
Agreed with the above.

However, when it comes to fluff keep in mind that once you go beyond a certain scale of vehicle (be it sea based or not) you're well into the realm of the Adept Mech and thus they'd either be extremely rare and therefore very valuable (for instance - the Imperium could invade just to capture said vehicle and to hell with the rest of the world) or very restricted as to how they'd come about or even be located.

Call it the Titan scale. If your proposed sea fortresses/battleships are up there in combat ability and/or survivability as titans you've gone too far. Contemporary warships in ability are easily PDF in build and availability. Massive void shielded death dealing devices capable of fighting off an orbital landing - far less so.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Sir_Godspeed on April 10, 2009, 08:05:02 AM
If I'm not entirely incorrect, astronomers have found exoplanets they suspect are entirely covered by water. On a planet like that, the only sound alternative in fighting, transporting and whatnot is[/is] ships. (yes, planes could do it faster, but I suspect their construction is highly sophisticated with the superior tech mentioned)

As others have mentioned before, there could be underwater hive cities, floating cities and platforms for orbital ejection, artificial islands, underwater mine-systems, coral defense positions, volcanic vents for energy production, huge floating plancton farms, etc. The possibilities are virtually endless.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Benis on April 10, 2009, 09:04:01 AM
As others have mentioned before, there could be underwater hive cities, floating cities and platforms for orbital ejection, artificial islands, underwater mine-systems, coral defense positions, volcanic vents for energy production, huge floating plancton farms, etc. The possibilities are virtually endless.

Makes me think of the mostly water covered maps in Total Annihilation. :)

Such a world would be a very good example were employing naval vessels would be better but on planets similar to Earth or with smaller oceans were military targets aren't hiding underwater or in the middle of a sea drop ships from space would probably be better, of course it is a big galaxy so you can always go nuts ;)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: XCrusaderguy01 on April 10, 2009, 11:05:26 AM
@Rummy

At first I was inclined to agree with you, but after a little bit of analysis I'm not so sure anymore. Given the vastly inflated scale (both in weight and armament) of 40k vehicles to begin with, I don't think that "Titan Scale" ships are all that far out. In real life, comparing a main battle tank to a battleship in terms of size and firepower is an awful lot like comparing your average 40k tank with a Titan. We build titans today in a manner of speaking.

I often find it useful to compare 40k (especially Imperial technology) to World War II era equipment, as it seems to follow that theme. Some of the largest, most heavily armed and armored tanks of the era are dwarfed by the battleships of the time:

King Tiger PzKfw IV Ausf. B
    Main Weapon: 1x 88mm
    Armor: 25-180mm

Bismark
    Main Weapons: 8x 380mm
                           12x 150mm
                           16x 105mm
    Armor: 110mm - 360mm

Yamato
    Main Weapons: 9x 460mm
                           6x 155mm
                           12x 127mm
    Armor: 200mm - 650mm

In a sense, battleships were real-life titans. We just needed to use water to get them to move around. I was imagining Imperial battleships that would make Baneblades look silly, but it seems that even real-life warships (more than within the reach of PDF forces) make baneblades look silly, and give titans a run for their money.

So lets scale up real life warships to a more impressive 40k scale.

WWII Era Medium Tank (Sherman, Panzer 4, T34) ~25-30 Tons
WWII Era Heavy Tank (Tiger, Pershing, IS-2) ~ 40 - 60 Tons
Modern main battle tanks (Abrams, Leopard 2, Merkava) ~ 60 Tons

Larger tanks have been built, e.g the Panzer VIII Maus (Largest tank ever, 2 Prototypes, never saw combat) ~190 Tons. This is a very strange outlier however, as no tank over ~70 tons has ever seen meaningful combat.

40k MBT (Leman Russ) ~ 66 Tons
40k Heavy Tank (Macharius) ~ 190 Tons
40k Super Heavy Tank (Baneblade) ~ 350 Tons

So your average 40k tank weights as much as the heaviest true land combat vehicles ever made. A somewhat less common heavy tank weighs 3x as much, and the relatively rare superheavy variety weights almost 6x as much.

WWII Era Battleship (Bismark, Yamato) ~50-70k tons, ~800ft
Modern Supercarrier (Nimitz) ~90k tons, ~1100ft
Largest ship ever built (Sumitomo Heavy Industries' Seawise Giant Supertanker) ~600,000 Tons, ~1500ft

If we use tanks to scale these real ships to 40k scale, you'd have 800ft Cruiser Class ships at 70k tons, heavier 1200ft battleships and carriers at 200k tons, and "super heavy" battleships, carriers, and various voidshield/defense laser-toting 2000ft behemoths at 600k tons.

Money. 8)

I do see what you're saying though about the AdMech restricting access to these larger vessels. But I think its perfectly reasonable for PDF forces to have some of the "smaller" ships, while important campaigns and warzones get the massive leviathans.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Benis on April 10, 2009, 11:12:44 AM
Quote from: XCrusaderguy01

I do see what you're saying though about the AdMech restricting access to these larger vessels. But I think its perfectly reasonable for PDF forces to have some of the "smaller" ships, while important campaigns and warzones get the massive leviathans.

I would say this would depend a lot on the technology level of said vessel. If you keep it low tech (by 40k standard) I see no reason why PDF couldn't build/maintain them with as little Adeptus Mechanicus influence as their tank companies/air cavalry have.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: rax on April 10, 2009, 11:33:37 AM
Re: OP
Ignoring for a moment what sort of sea-based weapon systems are appropriate for 40k, I certainly think that the sea will be a major battleground in many cases. Even on Earth the seas are a vital and resource-rich environment and, therefore, worth fighting over. For example, they provide food (fishing), fuel (oil) and easy access to most parts of the world (sea transport). In many near-future and sci-fi novels/games, it is also assumed that exploitation of the seas will increase as underwater mining becomes economical and increasing populations lead to the creation of floating or underwater habitats.

In 40k, I think it's safe to assume that anything that exists or may exist on Earth in the near future also exists in a great many places in the Imperium. Therefore, the seas will be at least as important as they are on Earth and it will be equally important to control them or deny access to an enemy. This will apply in many planetary invasion scenarios as well. For instance, even with advanced technology making air transport much more economical and effective, bulk transport will probably still be by sea (unless you make anti-gravity commonplace) simply because it's an easy and relatively cheap way to move large numbers of men and material. This is especially important for the defender, who may be forced to move troops from one continent to another as an invasion progresses, and is unlikely to have full command of the air/orbit if the invader has managed to land large numbers of troops.

Other reasons for fighting on the high seas may be to destroy the defender's ability to strike back against an invading space fleet. In the role-playing game Traveller, it was postulated that a great many system defences would be based underwater because this made them harder to detect and combat from orbit. System defence boats were built to be able to operate both in space and to take refuge underwater, from where they could continue to strike at the invaders. In 40k, underwater planetary defences and military bases could easily be made to play an even bigger part.

Finally there's the classic sci-fi reasons for making control of some or all the seas important - hidden underwater research facilities, raw materials that come from the planet's oceans, planets where the majority of the population lives on or underwater, and so on. There's no shortage of reasons why combat in the 40k universe couldn't include everything from fleet actions to underwater commando raids.

And just for fun, here's (http://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=100941.0) an Eldar aspect dedicated to fighting on- and underwater I developed a few years back. There's some good discussion as the thread progresses.


Cheers - Rax
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: The GrimSqueaker on April 10, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
I would say this would depend a lot on the technology level of said vessel. If you keep it low tech (by 40k standard) I see no reason why PDF couldn't build/maintain them with as little Adeptus Mechanicus influence as their tank companies/air cavalry have.

Indeed. I was referring to scale as an over all metric rather than one merely based on size. A fortress may be larger than a titan yet easily constructed if over a long period of time. They may be shielded and equipped with titan scale weapons all without being considered overly sacred by the Adept Mech. As Benis states, it's more to do with the complexity of the vehicle itself. Forge Worlds are required to build titans. If your sea based vehicle is as complex as a titan you've got issues as to how they were built unless they're very old and very rare.

Not that floating fortresses are out of bound themselves. Describe it as you will as anchored to the sea floor or even literally floating but you could have cities themselves rather than mobile vehicles.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Quasarcq on April 10, 2009, 04:59:04 PM
There definitely seems to be a blind spot with the naval technology with the imperium, let alone anyone else in the 40k realm. There isn't really any clue what sort of STC designs there would be for naval craft. I suppose for me that was the appeal to me when designing my space marine chapter. I have a level of creative license when developing my personal fluff for the chapter and their practices.

Rax, you pointed out a lot of logistical reasons for the importance of sea power. Detectability would be a huge issue and a platform for planetary counter-assault. And the submersibles I picture in 40k would be like small strike cruisers able to deploy large numbers of troops and equipment. Also if a planet has a large contingent under the sea than an enemy force attempting to assault the planet may grossly underestimate the planet's force strength.

So will we see naval tactics in the new planet strike supplement? Probably not. I suppose there isn't a lot you can do with a 6x4' table. However I would love to see a mission for a beach assault. To me that would be an awesome attacker/defender scenario. In apoc games I have thought of special rules for my Sea Stallions such as my vehicles ignoring water as dangerous terrain (as a vehicle upgrade it would be an amphibious conversion, 5 points) and my infantry getting move through cover in water terrain. I don't play apoc too often so I really haven't had the chance to play around the the idea a whole lot.

So far I have only really done paint scheme and bases when it comes to the modeling aspect. For my land raider I gave it water streaks like you would see on the side of a ship: white with algae stains. I also themed the bases of my assault marines. I may still gloss them up with water effects.
(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3320%2F3429244393_0afe7afe18.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=3f66d073f4ece21780949a5f19dac1c4a8fdb3d6)
Here are my super-beakie 2nd Co. 7th Sqd. "Sea Hawks" They are perhaps the only part of my chapter that holds strong traditional ties to the Mercurial Osprey's, their founding chapter, and to the Raven Guard, their original progenitors.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Gornon on April 12, 2009, 10:35:17 PM
If you all want GW-supported text that naval warfare exists, look at the Battle of Phoenix Island in the 4th Edition Rule Book, starting on page 250.  It talks about gigatankers shipping valuable ores across Armageddon to the factories there and there is a naval base that supplies the gigatankers with military escorts.  Not much, admittedly, but there is proof of naval warships and shipping convoys in the 40k universe.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Redjive35 on February 8, 2018, 01:12:50 PM
In all honesty, an entirely air/space based navy is not, even by 40k technology standards, feasible. Someone above posted an example of why: A 70% water world, where the resources and power centers are spread across multiple continents, or upon the water themselves. While I can accept that the Astra Militarum maintains mainly landing craft, missile/gun platforms and carriers, and relies on the PDF for the majority of it's other surface vessels, it is simply not efficient to try an entirely airborne campaign when you can use the ocean instead. Anti-Air batteries are far more effective than anti-surface batteries, and cheaper; A Thunderhawk is a far more lightly armored target than a WW2 vintage Newport News-class heavy cruiser, and would require far less ordnance to be disabled, with a single krak missile, more likely 3, from a man portable launcher to take out the gunship, whilst a  landing craft of comparable capacity would require anywhere from a large caliber artillery shell (an LCVP, with a full load of 32 assault troops) to 3 or 4 8-inch naval shells (LCT sized vessels), and that's assuming they all hit (for both scenarios). In addition, it's a lot easier defend a give section of beach from a sustained airborne assault than it is to defend it from a sustained amphibious assault. Void capable ships are either too big or too vulnerable from too many angles when a naval task force could serve a similar purpose at lower cost. The air power of the Imperial Guard and Navy is indeed both mighty and versatile, but it is also expensive and vulnerable. The mobile task forces based around a void shield carrier would be mighty indeed,and more secure than a ground based shield generator, in the same fashion of the ballistic missile subs of today. While I can understand why GeeDubs hasn't added models or rules for this into the current game, I certainly can't forgive a complete lack of reference to any sort of amphibious or surface combat.

Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.

And remember, your trusty Flamer can do all three.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: magenb on February 8, 2018, 03:40:41 PM
Sure naval battles are possible, but yeah, just going to be rare. Since most of the tech has been lost, it not like the imperium just setups a brand new factory to churn out ships to fight naval battles. Logistically it would not seem like a great idea to take up a lot of space to transport destroyer class naval ship through space on every ship just in case. I would imagine marines having small scale craft, probably amphibious vehicles they might carry just in case, but mostly I would expect they would have existing tactics to cover smaller scale battles to deal with water craft using what they have, such as nuking a destroyer from space.

It would however seem unluckily that the imperium would not be prepared to tackle water worlds, so it would seem logical they would have specialists units/chapters for this scenario. These guys are most likely called in, rather than simply being out there exploring the galaxy.


Eldar still know how to build their stuff, so could certainly build ships, but its only really the exodites that stay planet side. Eldar also have skimmer tech, so small scale battles could be fought with falcons/prisms, even jetbikes. Eldar's Cobra's and Scorpion super heavy tanks seem like a good fit for going up against destroyer class ships. So sounds like they will generally have things covered.


Nids would have the genetic material for aquatic life.

Tau are probably a similar scenario to the imperials except they can still build their stuff and have skimmers. The probably have a water caste lol.





Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: The GrimSqueaker on February 8, 2018, 05:49:30 PM
Guys. 2009 was a long time ago.

Tau are probably a similar scenario to the imperials except they can still build their stuff and have skimmers. The probably have a water caste lol.

You know nothing Jon Snow.  ::)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Sir_Godspeed on February 8, 2018, 11:44:57 PM
Wow, this was a blast from the past. :P

Welcome to 40konline, Redjive.

And I still maintain that 40k-style boats would be cool as heck.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Saim-Dann on February 8, 2018, 11:58:45 PM
G'day, XCrusaderguy01!
Haven't read all the comments in this thread, so forgive this reply if it has already been brought up.

Am pretty sure Warhammer Fantasy had a navel game back in 2nd ed. Use the same rules with kitbashed models and you've got what your after. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: The GrimSqueaker on February 9, 2018, 12:04:13 AM
1 - Read before posting. Not a long thread. You're not Trump.  ;)

2 - You mean Man'O'War? While fun it's nothing like we're talking about. There's a video game as well that's almost completely awful.

3 - No-one wants to hear about your navel.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Saim-Dann on February 9, 2018, 12:15:39 AM
1- Have more responsibilities than time to read all replies.

2- Yes! Man'O'War was what I was thinking of. (See, mate. Haven't even the time to google to get my
   facts straight.

3- I have an impressive navel thank you very much.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k and Sea-based naval warfare
Post by: Irisado on February 9, 2018, 11:42:49 AM
2009 was full of hope, youth, and promise.  2018 is anything but, and since we can neither be champions of hope (Globals are the bringers of malign portents after all) nor thread necromancy, this topic is locked.  If anyone would like to discuss the subject here further, please start a new thread :).