HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Warhammer Warhammer General discussion thread: Now with 100% more Space Marines
- Thread starter Battlegrinder
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I mean, generally yeah. Of course it is more like world war 2 era then modern style doctrine
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
Was it like this during Great Crusade as well? As in did the Legions themselves also mostly resupply, etc... back on the ship?
Doctrine doesn't really matter, that will vary heavily between regiments. The bigger issue is that thing where IG regiments specifically built as single unit types with combined arms only possible by combining multiple regiments.
The theory behind that is that if any one regiment goes traitor, it won't be able to defend itself because the imperium can use combined arms to crush it, which the traitors won't have.
The problem is that since in practice that means multiple regiments need to be deployed together, if one goes traitor its just as likely they'll bring the others along with them (particularly in long term planetary garrisons). But is does screw over single regiments that have to deploy by themselves. I've literally never heard of this system actually working as intended.
I'm not sure.
You do know I look at order of battles a lot in my job right now and I dont see much diffrence
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
Is there any solid figures given btw on how long it usually takes for Astartes operations to finish? Like weeks?
Remember that when 40k says "regiments", they're typically talking about a division sized formation, not what we would consider a regiments sized formation.
If there is, I'm not aware of it.
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
And I read that one Krieg infantry regiment was a quarter million troops strong.
That's like half of US army size. Of only infantry. Can't imagine the migraine Imperial Guard goes through with fitting all the regiments together and deciding who is in charge and when.
Kreig regiments are something of a special case, they're intentionally oversized because Kreig tactical doctrine is extremely attritional, so thier seige regiments have loads of spare troops built in.
And yes, getting regiments with different sizes, training practices, doctrines, etc to work together is a huge pain. Kreigers, for example, are such pains to work with the guard usually avoids pairing them up with non kreig regiments, it's not worth the bother.
A regiment is one echelon lower then a division. They can often be at the same size or even same level.
I thought it went Division > Brigade > Regiment/Battalion?
Yes and no. Regiment is often larger then battalion and often can be used as a brigade (-) so it Is an echelon underneath division. For instance the 3rd Ranger Regiment is the size of a brigade even though it is a regiment
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
And in Britain, where GW is from, a regiment can be the equivalent of a US battalion. Like they can have an armoured regiment with a few squadrons (company equivalent) of Main Battle Tanks. So that is like an armored battalion of US Army before the invention of Combined Arms Battalions where there is a mix of MBTs and IFVs.
Are the Krieg regiments and regiments styled their way the only ones in the hundreds of thousands?
Like are there Cadian, etc... regiments at least like in the 30000 to 50000 region?
I work in a combined force of US and ROK so we use what they also use, which is identical to the US. A Regiment is often the same or larger then a Battalion, varies enough that it can be the size of a brigade. There is a regiment in the US that is the size of a brigade that isn't Rangers.
I get it is GW and they are British but it seems the regiments very a lot depending on planet, perhaps that is why there is so much difference. Cadians are the most based on US/Canana/UK do perhaps they use a mixture of the term of regiment.
Not my whole job but a part is to know exactly what all of that is.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
When GW says regiment it can be anything from couple of hundred soldiers to hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Their grip on military terminology is even more tenuous than was that of FASA.
Historically, regiments originally consisted of up to ten companies of either infantry or cavalry and from the late 18th century could be subdivided into battalions. Later on, brigades would also enter organisation chart and these days they are about the size of regiments but in theory while the line battalions of a regiment would have all the same composition, while the battalions of a brigade could vary, with regiment being part of larger unit, while brigade could operate independently. So in theory an armored regiment would have three armored battalions + support units, while armored brigade would have two armored and one mechanized battalion + support units.
Of course different nations treat it differently, in UK for example the regiments are carriers of military tradition, having from one to seven regiments, while brigades are deployment formations that can be filled with battalions from any regiments, system going back to Napoleonic wars as regiments used to have their battalions spread all over the empire.
Historically, regiments originally consisted of up to ten companies of either infantry or cavalry and from the late 18th century could be subdivided into battalions. Later on, brigades would also enter organisation chart and these days they are about the size of regiments but in theory while the line battalions of a regiment would have all the same composition, while the battalions of a brigade could vary, with regiment being part of larger unit, while brigade could operate independently. So in theory an armored regiment would have three armored battalions + support units, while armored brigade would have two armored and one mechanized battalion + support units.
Of course different nations treat it differently, in UK for example the regiments are carriers of military tradition, having from one to seven regiments, while brigades are deployment formations that can be filled with battalions from any regiments, system going back to Napoleonic wars as regiments used to have their battalions spread all over the empire.
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
Blood Angels seem much better stocked:
Blood Angels - Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
- 39 Techmarines
- 87 Servitors
- 26 Predators
- 21 Baal Predators
- 39 Land Raiders
- 25 Repulsors
- Gladiators
- 10 Vindicators
- 10 Whirlwinds
- Invictor Warsuits
- Storm Speeders
- 12 Hunters
- 9 Stalkers
- 47 Stormraven Gunships
As far as I know, kreig seige regiments are at the top of the scale. On a quick skim, the Cadian 8th is around 10,000 strong and there's nothing saying it's wildly atypical compared to the norm for the cadians.
Also this:
GW writers are not, by and large, military veterans (offhand I actually can't think of any of the big names who are), and so don't exactly know what they're doing when they write about that kind thing. That has some advantages in that they tend to be more action-packed, while vet writers always seem to include a couple "being in the army is really boring, y'all" scenes, but that also means they make really dumb mistakes.
Blood Angels seem much better stocked:
Blood Angels - Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
wh40k.lexicanum.com
- 39 Techmarines
- 87 Servitors
- 26 Predators
- 21 Baal Predators
- 39 Land Raiders
- 25 Repulsors
- Gladiators
- 10 Vindicators
- 10 Whirlwinds
- Invictor Warsuits
- Storm Speeders
- 12 Hunters
- 9 Stalkers
- 47 Stormraven Gunships
I wouldn't trust that wiki, bits of that are definitely wrong. The cited source is the 8th edition codex, but the repulsor Gladiator didn't exist when that was printed.
Edit: I'm also doubtful of any source that says a chapter has more predators than land raiders, because that doesn't make any sense. Raiders are tougher and will be lost less frequently, but predators are far, far easier to produce and repair, so even with heavier losses they should outnumber heavy armor (particularly because the only task that's more difficult than killing a land raider is getting a new one).
Last edited:
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
What I find so cognitively dissonating is the difference of Astartes capacity during 30k and 40k. Where as in 30k it takes an entire legion to conquer a planet where as mere chapters do that in 40k. And that kind of diminishes the oomph factor of how powerful a legion is. Like given that legions generally were made up of what would be 100-200 40k era Chapters.
Legions should have been like conquering at least like a hundred planets at once with like a Chapter being able to conquer a planet like in 40k verse.
Legions should have been like conquering at least like a hundred planets at once with like a Chapter being able to conquer a planet like in 40k verse.
That's not the case, the legions only rarely gathered as a single body during the crusade, typically they were broken up into smaller formations. Not as small as in contemporary 40k, granted, I think it was closer to chapter strength or maybe a couple chapters.