The Warhammer fluff is a background for their tabletop games. Nice, good fun, but hardly 'realistic' (We are obviously talking about fantasy here). It forms a good basis for further thought, but that thought is needed if you wish to translate it into roleplay background that stand the test of critical thinking.

Let's take a planetary assault. If we follow the fluff, this might start like the Battlefleet Gothic Example of the same name, in which the invading fleet has to run the gauntlet to get enough attackers on the planet. This makes for an entertaining game and seems to lock in seamlessly with the description from Codex Planetstrike, but it is utter and complete nonsense.

For no sane commander will hazard his invasion forces before he has driven of the hostile fleet. This applies not just to modern military history, but to all military history as we know it. Take the Falkland Islands campaign as an example: the British Navy first chased the Argentine Navy to port and only then brought in its landing forces. The same pattern that applied to all operations in the Pacific. Or to earlier ages. Only if time is of supreme essence should a direct attack in the face of a hostile fleet be considered. This could happen. But should hardly be the school solution. The Tactica Imperialis solution can only be: gain system supremacy through fleet action (your BFG scenario minus the transports), reduce planetary defenses as far as possible (which is a risky business) and only then bring in your invasion forces.

The same applies to attacking in the teeth of the defenses. Again, it makes for a cracking game and paints a great picture,but makes little sense. The closest real world example that spring to mind is a parachute assault and there is a reason parachute forces have declined since WW II: against determined opposition, they stand little chance. Air defenses will savage them and once on the ground they are horrendously vulnerable against heavy forces. There might be cases where such a direct attack is the only option. But they should be rare indeed. There is a good reason any naval or airborne invasion I know off aimed for a weak point in the hostile defenses and tried to get a good hold first. Only if you have to get down right now should a direct assault be executed.

For in a real total war there are no such things as critical victories that win a campaign in a few hours, unless perhaps you are defending against an invasion and manage to destroy the enemy during its initial attack. Knocking out a command center or a vital industrial complex can indeed be decisive in the long run, but only because it gives you a crucial advantage in the following battles against the enemy main forces.

And pacification is the next chapter. We have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq that getting in can be deceptively easy, especially against weak opposition. But getting the whole area under control is a different ballgame.

To be fair, a scenario where an invading fleet faces no opposition doesn't make a lot of sense in Battlefleet Gothic -- that hardly means it never happens in the setting as described by the fluff. On the flipside, invasions where ground troops have to be landed within a specific timeframe are not entirely unthinkable, and so make for a realistic and exciting scenario for BFG. I don't see the problem here.

And in regards to attacking defended locations, I once again have to point out that I'd be critical of real world comparisons, when the real world does not feature the technology nor the tactics employed in this setting. The 40k equivalent of parachutes would be grav-chutes, and Codex Planetstrike references not them, but instead drop-ships, -pods and jump packs.

The value of a decisive first strike against an enemy command centre or vital industrial complex is amplified by the impact on morale. Consider, after all, what sort of people the defenders in such a scenario usually are -- invasions such as these aren't conducted against the Eldar and Dark Eldar, not against Orks, Daemons or Tyranids, but against other human rebels. Quite often, this would mean some PDF who are just following the orders of a rogue governor, and whose dedication to the cause may falter once confronted with the terrible consequences of their actions. A blow such as this not only provides the invader with a significant strategic advantage, but also shows the defenders that none of them are save, and that it may be better to lay down their arms and hope (in many cases futilely) that their pleas of mercy will be heard.

And in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan ... yes, indeed it is easier to get in rather than to truly get an area under control -- but you do not need artillery for the latter either, and in the case of rogue governors the unifying role of Ministorum faith should not be underestimated (nor should its sanctioned militias).

Hmmm...I'd point out that Trade Volume and Ship Size is the OP and suggest we continue this in a further thread, but since the Originator seems to want to go down this road I guess it's all fair and fun. I do like the discussion, to be sure.

Now Van Reibeeck, I can think of a couple amphibious attack that took place in the teeth of an active enemy fleet, but Guadalcanal is the standout. In that battle, the USN fled and left the USMC behind with about 3 days' worth of food, and less ammo. In general, though, you are correct. Still, most amphibious assault are undertaken by a power that already has local supremacy. I have to side with Lynata and agree that there are cases where such assaults occur in this genre. And yes, most of these probably are a case of pacifying rebels, or at least human opponents. I'm not an avid reader of 40K fiction, but I don't know of any Imperial invasions of Ork or Eldar worlds, and Necron worlds only by accident. Tau, on the other hand....

But to be fair, the reason air/space/ocean supremacy is required is all about logistics...again. Those supply lanes need to be kept open to facilitate the ongoing chain of ammo and food. Yes, tactics change with weaponry, hence with technology, but strategy tends to remain the same.

Correction, Guadalcanal is not an amphibious attack in the teeth of an enemy fleet. The troop landing phase took place unopposed by Japanese Naval forces and with hardly any opposition on the ground. The later naval clashes along 'Ironbottom Sound' were the result of a Japanese reaction to the landings. Just as the ferocious Japanese attacks on land.

But I am indeed naughty and have allowed myself to get sidetracked as well. This is a good discussion and would deserve its own thread.

Now you're picking fine points. Fletcher pulled his ships out within 48 hours due to attacks from land-based aircraft (corollary being Furies and Starhawks, of course), and that same night the Battle of Savo Island occurred. By the time 36 hours had passed, the Marines were on their own. These were all part of the Guadalcanal campaign. And the only reason it took the Japanese that long to react was due to bad weather and not sighting the American fleet soon enough. Otherwise, your opposed landing might have been realized. That landing was performed in the face of an enemy fleet based at Rabaul and patrolling considerably further out. The example is appropriate. Of course they are reactionary forces. Starship squadrons intercepting other squadrons in a system while moving to different planets within that system is the same type of maneuvers.

In fact, many of the island invasions were launched with the expectation of naval and air interception. It's not reasonable to remove all possibility of interdiction before bringing in the landing troops. D-Day was performed against virtually no opposition. The Germans had a handful of coastal craft against hundreds of combat ships, and they had fewer than 100 aircraft against 6000. That's not a fair example for comparison, nor are most of the other landings in the European theatre.

Most American (and Japanese) landings in the Pacific were made with the expectation of a possible counterattack and there are quite a few cases where surface ships capable of sea control managed to get embroiled with the amphibious armada laying off the coast. Guadalcanal is one. Leyte is another. Air attack was obviously expected as a matter of course, just like submarine activity and raids of small forces, but such sea denial operations cannot be avoided and have to be taken in stride.

But in none of these cases do we see a naval battle during the landing stage itself. For quite a good reason: no sane commander would start a landing if the direct area of operations is not under direct sea control. Later developments might result in the temporary loss of said sea control, but you won't lower your boats and let the marines climb down in them if you see the tall pagoda mast of the Musashi on the horizon.

Naval forces - and the WH40K Imperial Navy - are inherently flexible. They can advance and retreat as wished and are not bound by holding ground as land forces are. During WW II (and before) amphibious operations were as the rule covered by a main battle force (to deal with the enemy sea control forces), covered by a close escorts (to defend the vulnerable amphibious ships against light sea denial forces) and often supported by fire support forces (to focus on the shore defenses). Before a landing would start, the main battle force would move in to secure the area and remain around to cover the landings, which will only have to start once the overall commander feels sufficiently secure to do so.

My point is not that landings were only attempted when no opposition was present. My point is that no landing was started when direct heavy opposition (direct presence of major hostile sea control forces) was present. And only a foolish commander would hazard his vulnerable landing forces - be they on sea or in the void - while the issue is still being fought over by the main battle forces in the direct area of the landings, unless there is an overwhelming need for speed. There might be exceptions when this is the case: disrupting a summoning ritual or such that would force the hand of an Imperial Commander. But the Tactica Imperialis school solution can only be too first use your main forces to establish direct space control and only then start with the planetary defense suppression and landing operations.

I agree with the general sentiment; the "disrupting a summoning ritual" example is the type of scenario I was going for when mentioning the possibility.

Now, I could easily picture a glory hound type of commander deliberately gambling the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers on the possibility of breaking through a blockade in a swift move -- Imperial admirals and generals do not follow the same morale as the officers in charge of the real world operations mentioned above, and human lives are generally less valued in the 41st millennium than they were in WW2. And even in WW2 we have examples of commanders casually wasting the lives of their troops in some futile assault. That we don't have such an example for a naval invasion is, I think, mostly due to the initiative having been with those countries who did a lot to minimize casualties on their side.

But it is also a matter of simple foresight. Given the importance of air superiority, it just makes little sense to land any troops as long as your fleet has not established a minimum level of control over the area. If you can't beat the enemy's navy, they will just turn their guns on the ground troops as soon as they are finished with your fleet. And if you can beat them, why not do so before sending your dropships through that gauntlet?

As such, it really would be mostly a matter of timing. Preventing the sabotage of an important power plant, establishing a beachhead before the enemy can amass reinforcements, or .. yes, the summoning ritual. With the Imperium being perfectly willing to trade a million Guardsman lives for the recovery of an STC or an important holy relic, I could imagine lots of scenarios where such a sacrifice might seem appropriate ... if not to us, at least to the characters in the setting.

On a sidenote, I too like this discussion and the historical comparisons for perspective! We might have come way off topic, but I guess that's just a thing that is bound to happen at some point once you get a group of people going, talking about anything that qualifies as a common interest.

I'll kick in my vote for a great discussion, too. I enjoy this type of banter. And we all agree that it would be foolish to launch the dropships in the middle of a space battle. In fact, it would be foolish to enter near-orbit in the middle of a space battle. That's asking for destruction-by-firepower as every opponent nearby targeted the sitting duck in a very predictable and calculated trajectory. Avoiding that fire would probably result in re-entry burnout, so either way it's bye-bye.

And I'd point out that the father of history, Herodotus, begins his Histories with a digression on why digressions are important to any conversation about history. So we're in good company.

Indeed, a great discussion, both from the historical sense and from the Warhammer point of view. It even seems we are reading and thinking about each others answers!

It made me think about less than ideal landing operations. The most obvious example that springs to mind is the Spanish Armada of 1588 and although English 'brilliance' in defeating it has been overrated (in fact the Armada managed to pass through the channel with minor losses and with its landing forces intact) it shows the folly of attempting an amphibious operation without establishing proper sea control first.

During WW II there are some examples as well. Unternehmen Weserubung clearly shows us the dangers of undertaking a landing operation in the teeth of a superior fleet. The Germans managed to pull of the landing (although I should stress that there was no naval opposition worthy of the name during the landing phase itself) but payed heavily during the following British counterattacks. At the moment, I am trying to find an example of a truly callous landing attempt so my head is automatically turning towards the Eastern Front, but I fear I know too little of Soviet amphibious operations. The Kerch-Eltigen operation might fit the bill, but while these landings are indeed amphibious, they lack the 'naval' feel of landing operations over the high seas and seem to be better comparable to glorified river crossings.

Interesting that you bring up the case of the Spanish Armada, for it is the subject of one of the essays in Feeding Mars . Once again, logistics is the limiting factor. The reason for the Armada turning home was the lack of gunpowder. They didn't have enough powder to fight their way back through the Channel so they decided on the long voyage around the British Isles. The ensuing storms, of course, were the cause of the greatest loss of Spanish vessels. The veteran Santa Cruz was appointed commander but he died while the Armada was being built and collected. His logistical projections weren't met for anything except cannon, and that was greatly exceeded. If was still the early days of gunpowder and ships were being refurbished with new and better guns, with a concurrently greater need for more powder. Loading the Armada with even more cannon than was originally called for was considered a good thing, but not taking into account the greater consumption of powder meant the Spanish were running low by Day 2 of the running battle. Meanwhile, the English fleet kept putting into ports along the way and refilling their powder needs. There were other circumstances that turned defeat into infamy, but the original cause of the Spanish failure is one of logistics. By the way, Santa Cruz's plans called for the Armada linking up with the Duke of Parma in the Spanish Netherlands. That was supposed to be the source of the majority of the landing troops, along with a resupply of powder. The Duke of Medina Sidonia, who wound up as commander of the Armada, wasn't even a sailor, and that was a critical error on the part of the King of Spain, though one made necessary by politics.

And yes, the invasion of Norway in WWII by the Germans is another case of amphibious assault in the teeth of expected interception. It was gutsy of the Germans to even attempt it in the face of the Royal Navy, and was carried out with great loss of ships to the Germans. I believe you are correct in comparing Soviet amphibious operations in the Black Sea to river crossings. I only remember the three, Kerch, Novorrossisk, and Odessa. All were operational in scale, and all were mere supports of ground operations already in effect. They were flanking movements. They were not expected to take and hold for further amphibious reinforcements.

It really is too bad that not more of the current "Games Workshop Creative Team" writers take the time to read books like Planetstrike or the Siege of Vraks. Instead we get the idiocy that is the Mont'Ka Warzone Damocles book with its quote:

Then the blackness of space split open. Out came leviathan cathedral-topped warships - an entire Imperial armada in all its might and grandeur. Probe-station 7221:488 whirred, all its instruments working at maximum function. The probe scanned the fleet - a colossal feat, for the flagship-pattern craft alone offered a wealth of data and it was but one ship of hundreds, and not even the largest. The scanner-probes identified massive battleships, smaller escort craft and truly vast transport vessels filling the empty void that had been empty just moments before.

I mean sure, I know the Imperial Guard need big supply lines but hundreds of ships? Really GW, that's what we're going with now? Not to mention the fact that this world of Mu'gulath Bay is apparently a young colony not even a century old and already has orbital defences that put fear into the heart of the Imperial Admiral. The so-called planetary invasion that follows is also little more than a joke, which just goes to show how little the writers care about this vital part of the lore.

The imperial fleet does not perform anything but the shortest of bombardments, instead relying on a mass landing in some polluted wasteland outside the main city just to march towards it without any artillery or orbital support and taking constant fire by the unharassed Tau forces.

The fleet is ridiculous, to be sure, but I think one of the points of Damocles stuff was to show the Tau, who often really do seem so much better, in their own ways, then the Imperium, just how VAST that Imperium the enemy they think they can beat, or at least stalemate, really is. If all of Tau-controlled space adds up to the volume of, say, a Sector, maybe a small handful of such territories, how many sectors does the entire Imperium have? The Imperium finally started pulling out some of the stops we've been windering why they were lagging on, with the Tau, even sending an execution force after the various Tau leadership elements, and one of those even succeeded, if you can believe it. The Tau needed to be shown just how big, how powerful how belligerent, and how inexorable their foe REALLY is, and what lengths they can go to to rid themselves of a "nuisance". Honestly, I didn't get the books, so I hadn't read the fleet quote, before, and it IS silly, but i can appreciate the idea of the Tau just staring up at the wall of ships, if you will, and realizing that it won't matter how good their tech is, or how zealous they are in their own beliefs; they didn't bring enough guns, and now the hammer is about to fall.

As for ships vs. infantry, it's a fault, IMO, of the game. Why talk about how great the Navy ships are, when they canned Battlefleet Gothic? It's a game of armies, of troops in groups, and so they'll make the relevant examples reflect that aspect of the Imperial forces. IF BFG comes back, then they can talk about a massive Navy fleet, numbering the same as the stars, sweeping aside the paltry Tau fleet.

Yes, the Armada had its logistic problems, exacerbated by the absence of a good port on the North Sea Coast where it could take refuge and take the dread Army of Flanders aboard. A good example of what happens if you don't think the basic logistical needs through.

The Soviets might get some more kudos for their landing operations though. Take the landings on the Kerch peninsula in december '41: this was a well executed independent operation (although part of the wider Winter offensive) that achieved important results. While not on the scale of Overlord or Iceberg, they are not to be underestimated. Russia has military history of which it can be justly proud: they defeated Napoleon's Grande Armée and the Wehrmacht. Quite the tally.

Yes, the ports available to the Spanish on the North Sea coast were all for shallow-draft ships. The small size of medieval ports never ceases to amaze me. I had opportunity to visit the port of Lepanto this month. It could hold the HMS Victory...maybe...and a few rowboats.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9YvaKWNg7yhxKQFR2RXwMCt8UnvBpJY1GzfXg3mDo_1g0foF8tD1hVJzGA-wzojkUk5TiXJovBYS424lSmq3OeCES1NkH5p0bR1BE-wGzJrx6dbbgCnGU70mED1JZitDsHkbS3JsGeSZr1DkvlGSIYJwr8uTpFQQm2UBaxNdDlOSoACTvWykfundzSyf4Wig0JEKJyQUsbLIXxRAWqKNqe0lKAS_N0Mkjk74P2a4wE4BMNAy5wUwvV4N_u3S-o1R8QKRidDnIW1CpnogpzKAosvHZRWkW_eUHJNlt3-TTZvEUVFE6OVTgYIBJiVgFwc1aMLKOAbiRUTSItRI3WEXESMCn1pAIkh0dsKC0ycSNUyCcxFuQORJC_TyaR2bMwSbpXPaTfb-8uar74u1Y2Fe8Rihw0-0XjKxyLPFB1PAoTM-uMNrngC4v3tqazBi3AscDY-9UZMcBsOCbaQro3rUxpKSIEx1BowE2TQG3_Ez2ri3qUWhKVlcJ-UalSmJTjMZkeXQTbEYQPTVJmEiOw0wjUvNpTK6b05jSnO1MpHoXni9fIBmq0h57PABfAmbvGCaW43LlUxuxPXss1Cjxsx7nSWQq8PubWc=w1698-h955-no

Western historians are generally forgiving of those few Soviet amphibious operations. Post-Soviet Russian historians are not so kind.

As for ships vs. infantry, it's a fault, IMO, of the game. Why talk about how great the Navy ships are, when they canned Battlefleet Gothic? It's a game of armies, of troops in groups, and so they'll make the relevant examples reflect that aspect of the Imperial forces. IF BFG comes back, then they can talk about a massive Navy fleet, numbering the same as the stars, sweeping aside the paltry Tau fleet.

Maybe it's an element of having more of the gifted novellists, maybe it's the influence of the Forgeworld lot, but the descriptives of naval engagements in the Horus Heresy series always seem very good - and you definitely get to appreciate the scale of the ships.

Macragge's Honour is one of my favourite - there's a scene where you see assault bridges and boarding rams cross from one ship to the other, and you get to see company-sized blocks of marines rushing across the assault bridges and boarding through the Infidus Imperator's gunports (the surrounding barbette 'hole', not down the gun barrels) which really rams home the size of these ships, and you get to see dozen- and hundred-ship engagements which actually seem to be done with a modicum of tactical sense.

I'd say it is simply down to the medium rather than the writers. Why should a codex for a game about planetary battles describe naval combat? Andy Chambers is a GW codex author, yet he had no problem at all writing great naval action in his short story "Ancient History" as published in the Black Library anthologies Dark Imperium and Let the Galaxy Burn .

Though the ships he describes may possibly be a little smaller than the ones in FFG's Rogue Trader game or other Black Library novels -- the original numbers provided by BFG seemed rather conservative compared to the derivative interpretations other writers chose to go with, much like Space Marines are often bigger in the novels than in codex fluff, too.

Though I have to admit, a bridge-sized boarding ramp sounds like an amazing sight!

Indeed. It's an odd mix of writers who get the feel of 40k space combat 'just so'.

I fully understand that 40k isn't a space-combat focused universe - I guess part of my annoyance is when people either under-do it or over-do it. Usually as one-liner throw-away lines in codices* or in the e-book only short stories that Black Library churns a lot these days. I accept that it's always a secondary thing to a codex for a small ground skirmish game, though.

One of the conversations I had a long time back with John French picked it up quite nicely - we were talking about the Horus Heresy Tallarn stuff at the time, but the views apply to naval combat as well as hostile-environment armoured warfare - yes, marines are faster, and smarter, and need less sleep, and all that good stuff. But whilst they're better than humans at all that they're not that much better. In a close quarter knife-fight, or small arms fight, the marine has all the advantages - strength, resilience, enhanced senses. Even compared to a well-trained human with similar wargear (like the sororitas) then the Sororitas has to fight smart to win. But as tank crew? There's not that much difference between a veteran human crew and an astartes one. In a naval battle across tens of thousands of kilometres, even less.

I think it's one of the reasons I like the Imperial Navy characters. It's also something that popped up in the Horus Heresy novels which began sort-of-accidentally but was picked up and run with as it makes sense; given the whole 'no female space marines' thing; the majority of the named Capital-class shipmasters have been female.

Which makes sense, because if you look at mid-teenage classes graduating from whatever military academies and boot camps in the early-to-mid great crusade and took the top percentile - the 'best of the best with honours' and 'this one's got potential' types you might expect to be fast-tracked to command and see great things of in later life, a big proportion of the male candiates got creamed off by the Astartes Legions before the Army or Fleet ever got a crack at them, and hence a majority of the really, really good junior naval officers coming out of Terra were female.

Though I have to admit, a bridge-sized boarding ramp sounds like an amazing sight!

In fairness, the ship in question is the Ultramarines Legion flagship and a Glorianna; regardless of what dimensions you think imperial cruisers or even battleships should have, the Glorianna was "more than that"; they're Primarch's Flagships, and the biggest thing in the void short of the Furious Abyss, Phalanx and Imperator Somnium.

But yes, it's a hell of a visually impressive book. If you can get a copy I'd advise it.

The bit of the battle which takes place after the warp jump is weird as hell visually but very interesting for that. It's like a sort of mix between Babylon 5 hyperspace and a Salvador Dali painting.

*The example which springs to mind: Shadowsun overseeing the destruction of a 'Hive Fleet' 'without losing a ship' - firstly what the hell, secondly....what the hell some more, and thirdly - actually locking some conscious thought into the process - she's not a Kor'O, why was she commanding a naval engagement in the first place?. A lot of space marine naval fluff tends to be like this, too; any more recent 'Battle Of Macragge' fluff which has to repeatedly underline that the Space Marines won pretty much on their own (because the Space Marines are awesome) and not that they held on for grim death, despite massive losses, until what was essentially the core of a full segmentum battlefleet arrived.

Even compared to a well-trained human with similar wargear (like the sororitas) then the Sororitas has to fight smart to win. But as tank crew? There's not that much difference between a veteran human crew and an astartes one. In a naval battle across tens of thousands of kilometres, even less.

Yeah, that might explain why - or at least so I noticed - the Imperial Navy seems to show notably less deference to the Space Marines than the Guard. Technically, they're not under their command, anyways, but time and again you have Guardsmen voluntarily following their command due to simple reverence. The Navy, on the other hand?

"What, the Iron Fists refuse to adopt the Codex Astartes? Open gunports and lock weapons!"

"The Dark Angels are leaving Armageddon? I don't see any clearance for their departure. Dispatch a squadron to intercept those deserters!"

Totally different cultural views on the topic of Astartes!

I think it's one of the reasons I like the Imperial Navy characters. It's also something that popped up in the Horus Heresy novels which began sort-of-accidentally but was picked up and run with as it makes sense; given the whole 'no female space marines' thing; the majority of the named Capital-class shipmasters have been female.

Which makes sense, because if you look at mid-teenage classes graduating from whatever military academies and boot camps in the early-to-mid great crusade and took the top percentile - the 'best of the best with honours' and 'this one's got potential' types you might expect to be fast-tracked to command and see great things of in later life, a big proportion of the male candiates got creamed off by the Astartes Legions before the Army or Fleet ever got a crack at them, and hence a majority of the really, really good junior naval officers coming out of Terra were female.

I dunno, foot soldiers and naval personnel have totally different skillsets, and gene-seed compatibility is more important than the recruit's original capabilities (as pretty much all of them will be tremendously buffed).

I think this is just a few of the authors trying to increase diversity. I remember a discussion with Aaron Dembski-Bowden who specifically pointed out he's trying to add female characters as 40k suffers from an annoyingly unrealistic lack of them. The problem, as he pointed out, is that of course you can't add to many, else that would be just as unrealistic in terms of ratio. And when you're writing Space Marine stories, all of the Astartes have to be male by default, so the only possible "slots" for female protagonists are among the ordinary humans, where you also have to have a few men. Even assuming equal screentime for Astartes and humans (which likely is not the case), this already drops the possible amount of character slots for women to 25% max.

But ADB is conscious about it, and so tries to add female characters (and non-white characters) wherever possible.

That being said, it could also be a case of an author cleverly crafting an in-universe reason around an out-of-universe intention?

The example which springs to mind: Shadowsun overseeing the destruction of a 'Hive Fleet' 'without losing a ship' - firstly what the hell, secondly....what the hell some more, and thirdly - actually locking some conscious thought into the process - she's not a Kor'O, why was she commanding a naval engagement in the first place?. A lot of space marine naval fluff tends to be like this, too; any more recent 'Battle Of Macragge' fluff which has to repeatedly underline that the Space Marines won pretty much on their own (because the Space Marines are awesome) and not that they held on for grim death, despite massive losses, until what was essentially the core of a full segmentum battlefleet arrived.

Leaving aside the ridiculous invulnerability (I swear I've only seen something as silly as that in some - thankfully not all - Marine fluff until you pointed this out), I always thought Tau Commanders are a bit like Imperial Warmasters in that they have authority over any military resource assigned to their task -- but I'm no expert on Tau fluff and it's likely I was mistaken.

As for the "winning on their own" ... yes, that is annoying. I like to think that - similar to the legend of the 300 Spartans - the other, more numerous allied forces were simply left out of the tale. For example, Macragge has Guard-level regiments of PDF, and it would be utterly insane to assume they wouldn't be deployed. There is even an incident where this happened for the Sororitas in the 3E codex; a campaign where a force of just a thousand warriors liberated a hundred worlds. As if.

The fluff being officially labeled as unrealistic and possibly twisted by legend and propaganda thankfully gives us the opportunity to fix these things in our headcanon without feeling guilty. Just toss in some Imperial Guard or Frateris Militia here and there and everything immediately looks a lot better.

For Shadowsun, I'm sure she had a Kor'O floating around, somewhere, actually in charge of those assets, and either he was deferrent to her "superior military experience" role (she was trained by one of the greatest Tau military instructors of all time, while the Tau Navy is still sort of new, and their dedicated warships, even more so), or they sat down, offpage, and did what Tau do; agree to work together for the Greater Good. There probably also was a nameless Ethereal there, and he made sure the children didn't squabble over toes being stepped on.

As for fighting the Hive Fleet, and not losing a ship...and they think the Imperium writes ridiculous propaganda?

For example, Macragge has Guard-level regiments of PDF, and it would be utterly insane to assume they wouldn't be deployed.

In the more expansive descriptions, they are mentioned.

Well, Cold Steel Ridge was the last big fight before the bugs hit the Polar Defence Fortress, and whilst the astartes were there in force (it's where the Swarmlord out-commanded and nearly killed Calgar, which was a nasty surprise for the Imperium, and supposedly one of the reasons Calgar took Cassius' requests re Tyrannic War Veterans seriously), at least as many of the defenders were Macragge Defence Auxillia - with the Fortress Of Hera (a Baneblade) being the heart of the defences until a Hierodule reached it.

Equally, there was mention in....****, I think it might have been the Codex: Ultramarines, now I think about it, of Legio Praetor engines being deployed, too.

Since one thing mentioned in Know No Fear is that whilst none of the worlds of Ultramar are Forge Worlds per se, Gulliman had instead petitioned for a small Mechanicus contingent on each Ultramarine world, it's not unreasonable that Macragge might have a small titan detachment stationed there. The fact that (a) it's the battle of Macragge and (b) we've not heard from them since suggests it didn't go well for them, though.

That being said, it could also be a case of an author cleverly crafting an in-universe reason around an out-of-universe intention?

Quite possibly. As noted, there are only so many places in an astartes legion novel you can put a female character at all, and far less still if you want them to be meaningful.

Yeah, that might explain why - or at least so I noticed - the Imperial Navy seems to show notably less deference to the Space Marines than the Guard. Technically, they're not under their command, anyways, but time and again you have Guardsmen voluntarily following their command due to simple reverence. The Navy, on the other hand?

"What, the Iron Fists refuse to adopt the Codex Astartes? Open gunports and lock weapons!"

"The Dark Angels are leaving Armageddon? I don't see any clearance for their departure. Dispatch a squadron to intercept those deserters!"

Totally different cultural views on the topic of Astartes!

Very much so. The Imperial Guard only get orbital mobility on the say-so of the Navy or Munitorium, so the face-to-face picture is all they see; whilst as far as the Navy is concerned, letting the space marines get into a boarding action means you've already lost the battle that matters. and if you're actually on a front line battlefield, then whatever your theoretical chain of command, you're going to be inclined to listen to the allied veteran with two centuries of combat experience who's essentially carrying an auto-fire artillery piece and wearing a small tank....

I mean, yes, Astartes Battle Barges are massively powerful floating fortresses that even Navy Battleships have to respect. But even a fairly mid-level admiral has the same projectable firepower at his disposal as a planet-based chapter's master of the fleet, and his ships - whilst not as exotically built with the level of technology and care as relic space marine vessels - are uncompromisingly optimised for fleet combat, not troop transport or fighting static orbital defences.

One of the conversations I had a long time back with John French picked it up quite nicely - we were talking about the Horus Heresy Tallarn stuff at the time, but the views apply to naval combat as well as hostile-environment armoured warfare - yes, marines are faster, and smarter, and need less sleep, and all that good stuff. But whilst they're better than humans at all that they're not that much better. In a close quarter knife-fight, or small arms fight, the marine has all the advantages - strength, resilience, enhanced senses. Even compared to a well-trained human with similar wargear (like the sororitas) then the Sororitas has to fight smart to win. But as tank crew? There's not that much difference between a veteran human crew and an astartes one. In a naval battle across tens of thousands of kilometres, even less.

I've always wondered about this. In The Battletech game, Kerensky's Clans were genetically altered but actually had sensible distinctions between Fighter pilots, Mechwarriors and Elite infantry (Elementals).

Why would you waste something like a Space marine, which was a relatively rare asset even during the great crusade, on vehicle crew or aircraft operators? Specifically as Aircraft pilots, the shear mass of the Astartes could skew the weight and balance of an aircraft designed for a human pilot! (But that's just the pilot in me talking )

We know already that according to the fluff, Space Marine vessels are crewed by chapter serfs and servitors. Would it not make sense that some of them would be better utilized as combat vehicle crews? (Especially as aircraft pilots!) After all, we already "know" that not everyone that "washes out" of initiate training dies. Those with significant potential are used in various auxiliary roles for the Astartes and often have significant combat training. This would make them especially viable candidates to man Aircraft like the Stormtalon and Stormhawk. In fact, they would be far more efficient than "wasting" a full blown battle brother in such a role! One could even make a case for combat vehicle crews since they are never expected to disembark from their vehicle in combat so again, the combat prowess of an Astartes would be largely wasted!

I realise that none of this is Canon (If there is such a thing in 40k!) but what do you think?

I think the lack of efficiency is a side-effect of the Marines' tradition and pride, how they see themselves as warriors. Letting Non-Marines crew their tanks might feel like elevating them to an equal level. It's kind of like in medieval warfare when noble knights were forced to face ordinary soldiers wearing similar (mass-produced) armour and riding into battle on horses. It just undermines your own feeling of superiority and could force the Chapters to see their Serfs as battle brothers , too.

But more than that, it is also a question of adequacy. Generally, a Space Marines Strike Cruiser carrying a reinforced Battle Company (including elements of the Reserves) will also be stuffed full of weapons and vehicles which may never be deployed, simply because the Astartes see them as options to possibly add to a battle plan, rather than something that is going to be used for sure, like it would be the case with the Imperial Guard.

The Marines are indeed so flexible that the Captain in charge of the mission will look at the objective, and then start organising their troops as the situation demands, giving some of the Marines different weapons, and telling others to drive a variety of vehicles. Or he will have everyone show up as foot soldiers. Or he will deploy all available vehicles to form an armoured column. Maximum tactical adaptability.

Furthermore, it's part of the training of the Reserve Companies. These guys do not get sent on missions on their own, they are assigned as needed to the Battle Companies in order to provide fire support or vehicle crews. Driving a tank is less glorious than marching into battle on foot, but someone's gotta do it -- and at the end of it all stands the Veteran Space Marine of the Battle Companies, who in his hundreds of years of duty has provided fire support as a Devastator, has charged over walls as an Assault Marine, sniped foes as a Scout, and has driven Predator tanks and Rhino APCs when he was in a Tactical Squad.

Again, it's not efficient, but the Space Marines aren't supposed to be. They are all about flexibility and adaptability, the power armoured Jacks-of-all-Trades of the battlefields of the 41st millennium.

I think the lack of efficiency is a side-effect of the Marines' tradition and pride, how they see themselves as warriors. Letting Non-Marines crew their tanks might feel like elevating them to an equal level. It's kind of like in medieval warfare when noble knights were forced to face ordinary soldiers wearing similar (mass-produced) armour and riding into battle on horses. It just undermines your own feeling of superiority and could force the Chapters to see their Serfs as battle brothers , too.

But more than that, it is also a question of adequacy. Generally, a Space Marines Strike Cruiser carrying a reinforced Battle Company (including elements of the Reserves) will also be stuffed full of weapons and vehicles which may never be deployed, simply because the Astartes see them as options to possibly add to a battle plan, rather than something that is going to be used for sure, like it would be the case with the Imperial Guard.

The Marines are indeed so flexible that the Captain in charge of the mission will look at the objective, and then start organising their troops as the situation demands, giving some of the Marines different weapons, and telling others to drive a variety of vehicles. Or he will have everyone show up as foot soldiers. Or he will deploy all available vehicles to form an armoured column. Maximum tactical adaptability.

Furthermore, it's part of the training of the Reserve Companies. These guys do not get sent on missions on their own, they are assigned as needed to the Battle Companies in order to provide fire support or vehicle crews. Driving a tank is less glorious than marching into battle on foot, but someone's gotta do it -- and at the end of it all stands the Veteran Space Marine of the Battle Companies, who in his hundreds of years of duty has provided fire support as a Devastator, has charged over walls as an Assault Marine, sniped foes as a Scout, and has driven Predator tanks and Rhino APCs when he was in a Tactical Squad.

Again, it's not efficient, but the Space Marines aren't supposed to be. They are all about flexibility and adaptability, the power armoured Jacks-of-all-Trades of the battlefields of the 41st millennium.

Let's say that makes sense for ground vehicles (Maybe), What about aircraft? Especially the non troop carrying kind! The Marines are likely not even in contact with them other than by vox! Further, there is absolutely no reason (In fact it's actually detrimental) to put a powered armor individual in a high performance tactical aircraft. Further still, the case could be made that Stormhawk interceptors and Stormtalon gunships are actually part of the ship's compliment rather than part of the battle company. Not only would this allow for a place of honor for those few chapter serfs that "almost" made it through selection, it would also mean that said pilots would not count against the roster of the battle company's codex mandated maximum. For chapters like the Ultramarines, this could be VERY important! (As always; the Space wolves wouldn't care though! )

I'd always figured that chapter serfs and servitors made up the majority of flight crews. I sometimes see or hear of a techmarine on a Thunderhawk, but I don't recall any battle-brothers crewing them. The same would be even more applicable on non-Thunderhawks, especially the Landing Craft, but also the Stormhawks and Stormtalons.

I'd always figured that chapter serfs and servitors made up the majority of flight crews. I sometimes see or hear of a techmarine on a Thunderhawk, but I don't recall any battle-brothers crewing them. The same would be even more applicable on non-Thunderhawks, especially the Landing Craft, but also the Stormhawks and Stormtalons.

The Thunderhawk model by ForgeWorld and the Stormtalon model by GW both depict space marine pilots.

The fluff, especially forge world stuff, makes it clear the usual protocol is 2 marine pilots for larger craft like thunderhawks and presumably surviving stormbirds, and 1 pilot for anything else. The rest of the flight crew are servitors, with a possible attached techmarine. And the same versatility of crew applies to pilots; on any given deployment, the strike force would deploy only a fraction of their air cover. Interceptors, ground attack or transports, the pilots would be the same; whereas IN would deploy specialized pilots by the squadron and have the rest on alert, ready to deploy in minutes. A force of space marines could certainly deploy everthing they have for vehicles and aircraft, but it would leave them dangerously thin for manpower to put boots on the ground and secure an area.