Personally, if I were going to identify an MBT analogue for the Legiones Astartes, I'd be looking fairly directly at the Sicaran [as others have said]. It's simultaneously faster, better armoured, and better armed than a Predator; at the cost of being rarer both on the tabletop [coming in at a little shy of double the points], and in the fluff [due to the rollout of htem to the Legions still being in-progress when the Heresy broke out]. Now, to be fair the relevant Black/Red book entries DO identify the Predator as a "medium tank" [and, for that matter, the Sicaran as being a "destroyer" tank ... although clearly not in the manner of a standard "tank-destroyer" far-future jagdpanzer analogue, given th eturret etc - a role which is instead fulfilled by the Venator]; but in the technological context of the early 31st millenium, it seems feasible to conclude that the Sicaran is the 'next stage' in MBT design, and if the Heresy hadn't happened - would probably have come to represent the new "Medium" for Astartes armoured formations in much hte same way that the Panther came to eclipse and replace the Panzer IV. [and, as it happens, given production/technological issues meant the Panther *wasn't* able to replace the Germans' previous medium-tank designs but instead supplement them .. the analogy may be even more direct for the Sicaran-Predator relationship - as factors ranging from Horus-shenanigans to technical complexity limited the scale of its ongoing production and deployment relative to the simpler Predator, especially for Loyalist forces]
Now having said all that, a number of further points about armoured vehicle employment in Astartes use probably need to be made. The first is that the Sicaran's status as a "fast" tank does not necessarily de-legitimate it from MBT status. We already know from real-world analogue-value that the Leopard II, for instance [which, I note, also represents qualitative improvements in speed, firepower and armour from the Leopard I in a manner that we might argue is somewaht coterminous with the relationship between the Predator and subsequent Sicaran] is not excluded from being an MBT simply due to being "fast"; nor does a primary combat role of engaging other armoured vehicles do so. And wehre it is arguable that a 'tank destroyer''s primary mode of engagement would be ambush tactics, a sort of fire-and-withdraw formula; the superior speed of the Sicaran would lend itself instead to 'deep battle' operations, whilst its armour and other characteristics may make it a viable 'breakthrough' tank capable of engaging other armour whilst on the move. Which is pretty much exactly how an MBT is supposed to fight.
The Predator, meanwhile, does also deserve something of a lookin - but given the nature of the battlefields of the 31st millennium (wherein it's arguable that they're fairly comprehensively outperformed by the MBT-analogues and heavier armour of other factions, such as a number of Imperial Army vehicles, or the obvious profusion of Land Raiders and Rhino-based tank-destroyers floating around in Marine forces), I suspect it's more proper to view it in hte manner of a light tank(although admittedly one with pretty decent frontal armour]. Given the theoretical preferred operational style of Marines [hard, fast, and aerospace deployable], I find myself reminded of something like the French AMX-13, or the M551 Sheridan.
And as applies the Land Raider ... it's true that they're specifically cited in 40k [in the old Index Astartes article on them, I believe] as being the Marines' serious anti-armour [particularly anti-superheavy/titan] vehicle. Although it's questionable for a number of reasons whether it's a good fit for the Main Battle Tank label as we understand it today [Arkhan Land's borrowing of 20th century terminology perhaps notwithstanding - after all, there are a number of instances in 30k of Imperial formations taking terms from our history and applying them ... somewhat questionably - see, for instance, "Ephoroi" from the Custodes writeup in Inferno as one such example]. Certainly, in a direct comparison against the Sicaran, it has better all-around armour; although the matter becomes somewhat more complicated when it comes to a firepower comparison - 6 s7 rending shots versus 2 twin-linked s9 ... although adding lascannon sponsons to the Sicaran almost definitely makes it the superior anti-armour option [not least because targets don't have to be in the frontal arc to actually be hit by all of the vehicle's main armament as they woul with a Land Raider].
Indeed, having thought about this for a bit, I'm not sure there IS a 21st century category of vehicle which the Raider easily fits into. I mean, on the face of it, there are a number of "heavy APCs" from history which notionally fit some elements of the profile - being heavily armoured tank-chassis infantry-carriers [and, as applies the Israeli 'Namer' conversion of the Merkava IV, supposedly of even heavier armour than their MBTs ... although the extent to which a Merkava's a conventional MBT is debatable]. But even looking at some of the ultra-modern Russian IFV designs which have come out [thinking here of the Russian Kurganets project], there's still quite a gulf between those and a Raider - at least in terms of the fact that the IFVs in question all mount relatively small-caliber autocannon at best as a main weapon rather than tank cannon [although combat experience from South Africa somewhat amusingly proves that 20mm penetrator autocannon rounds [admittedly from a different, older weapon] ARE capable of seriously damaging enemy armour ... provided that the armour in question is of a WWII vintage] ; with anti-armour capacity provided by ATGMs [which would probably be broadly analogous to Hunter-Killer missiles]. [a similar vehicle from another Imperial force in this regard would be the Dracosan - and,for that matter ... good grief, the Mastodon]
In any case, classified by armour-values, the Land Raider is pretty much a heavy tank. I remember from the old Vehicle Design Rules from a 3rd edition White Dwarf, that it was specifically demarcated as being pretty much right on the line before we get up into super-heavy territory. Admittedly, the absolute profusion of super-heavies and even-larger-land-raider-variants onto the battlefields of the 31st millennium makes it seemingly a little less inconsistent for the Raider to be designated a "medium" tank amdist all of that ... but I'm still somewhat uneasy with the "medium" classification on the basis of both the vehicle in question's characteristics, and its apparent combat role [not least because some might argue that hte main weapon of the Land Raider is actually the complement of Marines with anti-armour weaponry, close combat gear etc. in the infantry compartment]; as well as the opinion shared by a number of people that there's a superior designee for the role in question in the form of the Sicaran [and really, the Tiger running around the place fulfilling a number of MBT characteristics didn't necessarily make it one instead of the comparatively lighter Panzers IV and V in the context of its affiliated force].
Further, call me something of a traditionalist, but it's difficult to conceive of an armoured vehicle truly fulfilling the MBT role in the absence of a turreted weapon. Guderian, to put it bluntly, had a point. Although having said that, I'm also aware that there HAS been at least one nominal "MBT" mounting a non-turreted main gun, in the form of the Stridsvagen 103 ... although I chalk that vehicle's MBT designation up to a combination of its context within the Swedish armed forces and their respective doctrine [wherein extensive testing demonstrated that the S-103 COULD in fact viably fire on the move and operate in a comparable manner to the Leopard Is and Chieftains of allied forces - despite its design seemingly tiying it to a tank-destroyer mode of employment], and the fact that the term "MBT" has become excessively fuzzy [c.f the way in which what would previously probably have been described as 'heavy tanks' have been folded into the MBT category in the last few decades - which is exactly what i'm effectively alleging has happened with the Land Raider being officially designated a "Medium" tank, despite having armour better than some actual superheavies etc.]
Friday, March 24, 2017
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Doctrinal Comparison IV: Night Lords & Dirlewanger Brigade
Had some thoughts in the wee hours of this morning about the VIIIth Legion. Now, Kais has already noted an operational tendency towards "defeat in detail"; and there's also an obvious penchant for psychological warfare taken to debilitating extremes. But in terms of fleshing out (or, in the case of the Night Lords, *flaying* out), these are still somewhat abstract concepts; and may benefit from having actual units and operational histories to draw from.
Enter the Dirlewanger Brigade. For those unaware, these are basically the literal worst war-criminals [as in, criminals who went to war, whereupon attrocity ensued] you are likely to find in the benighted annals of the Eastern Front. They were so .. almost cartoonishly brutal that even the SS themselves on a number of occasions saw fit to attempt to censure or sanction them [the military courts. etc. never stuck due to political interference, however]. As an example of just /how bad/ we're talking, there was an incident during the Wola Massacre as part of the Warsaw Uprising wherein the men of Dirlewanger stumbled upon a creche of 500 or so Polish children. Dirlewanger ordered them killed (which even members of his own unit reportedly balked somewhat at) ... through the use of bayonets and rifle-butts rather than bullets so as to conserve ammunition. An eyewitness account at the time has "blood and brain matter [flowing] in streams down the stairs".
Anyway, the purpose of this analysis is less to shock/enlighten with historical facts than it is to engage in comparison. And when reading of the Dirlewanger, I could not help but note the perhaps surprising degree of coterminity which they had with the Night Lords in terms of the unit's formation, employment, and tactical shortcomings.
They were put together as something of an anti-partisan force (officially, a small unit -initially at least - of "poachers"; men convicted of certain (narrowly constrained) classes of criminal offence, whose skills and 'criminal initiative' were thought to be of potential use in the relevant form of operation). With time, the strictures upon who was eligible for enlistment with Dirlewanger became virtually nonexistent - and the force grew substantially in size, attracting ever more deplorable varieties of criminal and/or psychopath along the way (like, I'm not even joking - "criminally insane" is a literal legal description of some of the men involved). It also played host to 'local' recruits from Eastern European populations for a number of months, until it was deemed that they were too "unreliable" under fire. During this period, its engagement style evolved from behind-the-lines anti-partisan duties through to a rather more pro-active approach of rollling up in a village, coralling the population into a church or other large building, setting fire to the building, and then shooting anyone who attempted to flee the flames. Exactly such an action is depicted in the Soviet masterpiece film "Come And See". It is a mark of the sort of duties they engaged and revelled in that at the point Dirlewanger Battalion had killed its 15,000th victim [the far and away overwhelming majority of which don't appear to have been partisans], it had lost only 92 men - mostly, apparently, to alcohol and friendly fire incidents.
'Dirlewanger' DID wind up eventually being committed to more 'conventional' warfare toward the latter half of the war - although the results were overwhelmingly negative. During their main engagement with the Russians as part of Army Group Center, they lost somewhere over 50% of their men; whereas during the Warsaw Uprising they apparently suffered 315% casualties (as in, they lost several times over the number of men they went in with - which was only possible due to the steady stream of criminals who were continually able to be supplied to the unit). Toward the War's end, 'Dirlewanger' started to steadily disintegrate (even as it was officially bulked out into the status of a full Division), and you wind up with incidences like one of the "Division's" component regiments lynching its commanding officer [for reasons which, whilst never officially confirmed, may have had something to do iwth the fact hta tthe officer in questoin was the former commandant of Dachau - where a number of the criminals now in Dirlewanger had previously been imprisoned...].
Anyway. The parallels iwth the Night Lords ought be immediately obviously apparent. In both cases, we have a force deliberately constructed out of criminals and designed for anti-insurrectionary operations, who made oblique terror-tactics and seriously inhuman brutality their calling cards. Again, in both cases, we also have formations which were frightningly effective (arguably) in their particular combat role (well, they were certainly frightening, at any rate); yet which were ultimately "wasted" on conventional engagements. Additional problems of a fractious approach to discipline and internal morale coupled with cowardilness and a certain penchant towards friendly fire (of an occasionally quite deliberate nature hwen it came to offing hated erstwile superiors and the like) further stand out as similarities. We can also arguably trace the steady deterioration in 'Dirlewanger' to the demands for its swift expansion which lead to the incorporation of ever more outwardly deranged recruits - which is pretty much exactly what happened with the VIIIth Legion following the admission of Nostraman born inductees.
When reading about the Durlewanger Battalion's activities and makeup I couldn't help but recall a certain Sevatar quote:
""Because the Wolves kill cleanly, and we do not. They also kill quickly, and we have never done that, either. They fight, they win, and they stalk back to their ships with their tails held high. If they were ever ordered to destroy another Legion, they would do it by hurling warrior against warrior, seeking to grind their enemies down with the admirable delusions of the 'noble savage'. If we were ever ordered to assault another Legion, we would virus bomb their recruitment worlds; slaughter their serfs and slaves; poison their gene-seed repositories and spend the next dozen decades watching them die slow, humiliating deaths. Night after night, raid after raid, we'd overwhelm stragglers from their fleets and bleach their skulls to hang from our armour, until none remained. But that isn't the quick execution the Emperor needs, is it? The Wolves go for the throat. We go for the eyes. Then the tongue. Then the hands. Then the feet. Then we skin the crippled remains, and offer it up as an example to any still bearing witness. The Wolves were warriors before they became soldiers. We were murderers first, last, and always!""
Now, as it happens, there are some other units and practices which may be relevant for a proper discussion of the VIIIth. In specia, the talk about gangs turning up in the US Military. Although I think I might save more detailed analysis on this for if/when I get around to writing up something on the XVIth Legion - whom I basically perceive as operating on exactly this cultural model...
Enter the Dirlewanger Brigade. For those unaware, these are basically the literal worst war-criminals [as in, criminals who went to war, whereupon attrocity ensued] you are likely to find in the benighted annals of the Eastern Front. They were so .. almost cartoonishly brutal that even the SS themselves on a number of occasions saw fit to attempt to censure or sanction them [the military courts. etc. never stuck due to political interference, however]. As an example of just /how bad/ we're talking, there was an incident during the Wola Massacre as part of the Warsaw Uprising wherein the men of Dirlewanger stumbled upon a creche of 500 or so Polish children. Dirlewanger ordered them killed (which even members of his own unit reportedly balked somewhat at) ... through the use of bayonets and rifle-butts rather than bullets so as to conserve ammunition. An eyewitness account at the time has "blood and brain matter [flowing] in streams down the stairs".
Anyway, the purpose of this analysis is less to shock/enlighten with historical facts than it is to engage in comparison. And when reading of the Dirlewanger, I could not help but note the perhaps surprising degree of coterminity which they had with the Night Lords in terms of the unit's formation, employment, and tactical shortcomings.
They were put together as something of an anti-partisan force (officially, a small unit -initially at least - of "poachers"; men convicted of certain (narrowly constrained) classes of criminal offence, whose skills and 'criminal initiative' were thought to be of potential use in the relevant form of operation). With time, the strictures upon who was eligible for enlistment with Dirlewanger became virtually nonexistent - and the force grew substantially in size, attracting ever more deplorable varieties of criminal and/or psychopath along the way (like, I'm not even joking - "criminally insane" is a literal legal description of some of the men involved). It also played host to 'local' recruits from Eastern European populations for a number of months, until it was deemed that they were too "unreliable" under fire. During this period, its engagement style evolved from behind-the-lines anti-partisan duties through to a rather more pro-active approach of rollling up in a village, coralling the population into a church or other large building, setting fire to the building, and then shooting anyone who attempted to flee the flames. Exactly such an action is depicted in the Soviet masterpiece film "Come And See". It is a mark of the sort of duties they engaged and revelled in that at the point Dirlewanger Battalion had killed its 15,000th victim [the far and away overwhelming majority of which don't appear to have been partisans], it had lost only 92 men - mostly, apparently, to alcohol and friendly fire incidents.
'Dirlewanger' DID wind up eventually being committed to more 'conventional' warfare toward the latter half of the war - although the results were overwhelmingly negative. During their main engagement with the Russians as part of Army Group Center, they lost somewhere over 50% of their men; whereas during the Warsaw Uprising they apparently suffered 315% casualties (as in, they lost several times over the number of men they went in with - which was only possible due to the steady stream of criminals who were continually able to be supplied to the unit). Toward the War's end, 'Dirlewanger' started to steadily disintegrate (even as it was officially bulked out into the status of a full Division), and you wind up with incidences like one of the "Division's" component regiments lynching its commanding officer [for reasons which, whilst never officially confirmed, may have had something to do iwth the fact hta tthe officer in questoin was the former commandant of Dachau - where a number of the criminals now in Dirlewanger had previously been imprisoned...].
Anyway. The parallels iwth the Night Lords ought be immediately obviously apparent. In both cases, we have a force deliberately constructed out of criminals and designed for anti-insurrectionary operations, who made oblique terror-tactics and seriously inhuman brutality their calling cards. Again, in both cases, we also have formations which were frightningly effective (arguably) in their particular combat role (well, they were certainly frightening, at any rate); yet which were ultimately "wasted" on conventional engagements. Additional problems of a fractious approach to discipline and internal morale coupled with cowardilness and a certain penchant towards friendly fire (of an occasionally quite deliberate nature hwen it came to offing hated erstwile superiors and the like) further stand out as similarities. We can also arguably trace the steady deterioration in 'Dirlewanger' to the demands for its swift expansion which lead to the incorporation of ever more outwardly deranged recruits - which is pretty much exactly what happened with the VIIIth Legion following the admission of Nostraman born inductees.
When reading about the Durlewanger Battalion's activities and makeup I couldn't help but recall a certain Sevatar quote:
""Because the Wolves kill cleanly, and we do not. They also kill quickly, and we have never done that, either. They fight, they win, and they stalk back to their ships with their tails held high. If they were ever ordered to destroy another Legion, they would do it by hurling warrior against warrior, seeking to grind their enemies down with the admirable delusions of the 'noble savage'. If we were ever ordered to assault another Legion, we would virus bomb their recruitment worlds; slaughter their serfs and slaves; poison their gene-seed repositories and spend the next dozen decades watching them die slow, humiliating deaths. Night after night, raid after raid, we'd overwhelm stragglers from their fleets and bleach their skulls to hang from our armour, until none remained. But that isn't the quick execution the Emperor needs, is it? The Wolves go for the throat. We go for the eyes. Then the tongue. Then the hands. Then the feet. Then we skin the crippled remains, and offer it up as an example to any still bearing witness. The Wolves were warriors before they became soldiers. We were murderers first, last, and always!""
Now, as it happens, there are some other units and practices which may be relevant for a proper discussion of the VIIIth. In specia, the talk about gangs turning up in the US Military. Although I think I might save more detailed analysis on this for if/when I get around to writing up something on the XVIth Legion - whom I basically perceive as operating on exactly this cultural model...
Doctrinal Comparison III: Alpha Legion, and the Quds Force of Major General Soleimani
The next Legion I had a few thoughts on was the Alpha Legion. Now, pretty much everybody implicitly knows what they're supposed to be about - and have at least a vague conception of them as "special forces" - or, as has been suggested by some commentators here, "Green Berets", "CIA" and "Shin Bet".
It's not that I disagree with these classifications. Indeed, quite the opposite. But I do think they could use some fleshing out with regard to actual historical praxis. And I think i've found *just* the force/figures to do it.
Enter Iran's Quds Force. And, in specia, the chap commanding them - Major General Qasem Soleimani. [ who has been described as something of an intelligence agent's ghost story] The former reason for their existence was something along hte lines of 'exporting the Revolution'; which later on morphed somewhat into acting as a combination paramilitary/special forces/intelligence/diplomatic/black ops organization dedicated to often decidedly unorthodox Iranian power projection. This became increasingly necessary in the wake of the Iran-Iraq war, which fairly convincingly suggested to the Iranians that conventional approaches - diplomacy and force of arms - weren't going to be particularly viable in advancing their geopolitical agenda.
If we look at their operational style, the Quds Force appears to do everything from building and co-ordinating with local forces in both advisory and command roles (for example, Shi'ite militias in Iraq, and the Syrian Army in Syria - they've also a very good longstanding relationship with Hezbollah), through to direct actions themselves in a battlefield context. However, they also occasionally get up to hijinks like attempting to hire a Mexican drug cartel to carry out a targeted assassination in Washington of the Saudi ambassador to the US (which, while it might sound pretty Alpha Legion ... loses XXth points because the guy they reached out to turned out to be a DEA plant, which is where the whole operation came unstuck ), and other such acts of nefarious arguable terrorism. More interestingly, though, they (or, rather, Soleimani) also appear to act as a bit of a diplomatic corps - with Soleimani allegedly playing a critical role in bringing the Russians on-board with the idea of intervening in the Syrian civil war [the account linked has Putin personally requesting Soleimani's involvement]; and even apparently securing the American withdrawal from Iraq that accompanied the formation of the Maliki government (which, obviously, made Iraq into that much more of an Iranian playground - a strategic aim achieved via political manipulation which oculd not have been done via bullets). There's also reports of Iranian diplomats directly taking orders from Soleimani [including a substantial period in 2001 wherien Soleimani appears to have been closely co-operating with the Americans in Afghanistan]; and of the Quds Force flooding particular warzones (whether late-2000s Iraq and Afghanistan, or present-day Yemen) with occasionally rather advanced weapons (such as the somewhat armour-piercing, motion-sensor triggered EFP bombs].
Now as applies the Alpha Legion, the foundations for a rather close comparison ought appear immediately and strikingly obvious. Instead of fighting conventionally, these guys engage in just about everything but - whilst still retaining the capacity to conventionally engage if necessary. Assassinations and working through local catspaws are one thing; but what really swayed me was the perspective that what these guys have effectively managed to do over the thirty or so years of their existence ... is build up an impressive Iranian sphere of influence stretching from eastern Afghanistan through to the Mediterranean in both Lebanon and Syria in ways that conventional military action by Iran would simply have been unable to (which puts Quds on a different level, arguably, to Mossad or whatever - because whilst Mossad's record of foreign operations is undeniably impressive, I don't think they've *quite* pulled off pulling together a reasonable swathe of an entire region of the globe under regional power suzerainty). This is not to say that large-scale interventions haven't taken place - of course htey have. But it's all the more impressive (in my book, anyway) when you manage to rope in Russia and a whole boatload of other forces to do your work for you.
Now THAT'S Alpha Legion!
On top of this, I did also consider elements in what's tenuously identified as the "Arabian way of war" as being fairly emblematic of the Alpha Legion. This account by a retired US Colonel with experience in the region highlights tendencies towards "evasion, delay and indirection [...] winning wars without battles". There's also some interesting remarks toward the end about a culture of outright falsehood when it comes to dealing with allies as part of a strategy of manipulation [for example, Sadat is supposed to have had an /entire secondary set of operational plans/ drawn up so as to fool the Syrians into doing what Egypt wanted against Israel in '73].
As an example of Egyptian strategic misdirection bearing fruit, the pre-engagement phases of Operation Badr spring to mind [the crossing of the Suez Canal which opened the Yom Kippur War]. Probably not nearly as sneaky as most sorts of things tha the XXth get up to (as the Israelis still effectively wound up with six hours' warning of the impending invastion), but still importantly effective (Israeli defensive plans were predicated upon having 48 hours' warning; and had it not been for the serious strength of misdirection and obfuscation employed by the Egyptians, would almost certainly have noticed and responded to the rather substantial troop-buildup taking place on their then-border - making the crossing of the Suez an unquestionable bloodbath).
Rounding out the profile for the Alpha Legion (because while there are many other potential examples to draw upon ... it's a quarter past five in the morning, and I'm trying to avoid excessive text-walling beyond what i've done already ) is probably Otto Skorzeny. In specia, not just his incredibly daring commando antics (including his Post-War activities as a sort of a Mossad agent - which hinged around his German targets presuming he was still .. well .. German-aligned rather than working for the people the Nazis hated most), but his role in Operation Greif as part of the Battle of the Bulge. Here, the unit he formed - Panzer Brigade 150 - made a point of having forces capable of speaking English, wearing American uniforms, and visually disguising German armoured vehicles as their rough Allied equivalents; with the goal of using the ensuing confusion and misdirection to seize two important bridges. This recalls rather strongly the Alpha Legion practice of repainting hteir armour or otherwise disguising themselves as other Legion forces. [which reaches some heights of ridicularity with the "I AM ALPHARIUS" ascended-meme ... and gets more than a little confusing during one of the Alpha Legion novels, in which Iron Hands disguised as Alpha Legion wind up engaged against Alpha Legion disguised as Iron Hands disguised as Alpha Legion or something]. [the "I am Alpharius" practice, apart from its obvious point of inspiration with "I am Spartacus", has quite some 20th century precedent to it as well]
Oh, and something I keep meaning to do is look into the historical precedents for the character of Mendacs in Liar's Due. Because again - THAT'S how the Alpha Legion wage war in my head. Not so much through Serpent Beneath style over-elaborate heist movie double-blind infiltrations [which are the bits we customarily see the most of]... but also by looking at the overarching strategic picture, and deploying the least effort possible (in this case, a single operative) to take an entire string of worlds in succession. I'm also a great fan of the implication from the third Black Book that Paramar V was taken for the express purpose of tying down the Warmaster's forces and thus subtly tilting the balance of the galactic conflict against the rebels for a bit; and would be mad interested in finding a real-world equivalency for this.
Anyway, I've once again gone wildly over-length ... but hopefully that's fleshed out some historical points of reference/inspiration for how the Alpha Legion might act. I can't stress enough how much I perceive the actual table-top engagements of the Alpha Legion to be an extreme minority of XXth Legion warfare - the "tip of the iceberg", if you will. Much of the time that the Emperor's forces wind up fighting the Alpha Legion, they probably don't have any idea that they're actually fighting the Alphas - either because the forces they're engaging are Legion catspaws, unwitting pawns [c.f the Orks against hte White Scars in the early scene from The Serpent Beneath], or disguised. And that many of the Alpha Legion's victories or strategic designs are events we don't actually wind up playing out on the tabletop (Inq28 possibly excepted) precisely because they use other tools like politics and diplomacy to accomplish outcomes without having to resort to battle. [with, of course, the obvious caveat that they remain Astartes, and fully ready to step unto the breach if their covert operations fail to properly come to fruition, or they're discovered in flagrante] [or, at the very least, the idea that the Alpha Legion you CAN see probably aren't all or most of them, and that they're doing something unexpected elsewhere while their distraction body holds your attention - which, by the time it's noticed, is alread ywell too late]
It's not that I disagree with these classifications. Indeed, quite the opposite. But I do think they could use some fleshing out with regard to actual historical praxis. And I think i've found *just* the force/figures to do it.
Enter Iran's Quds Force. And, in specia, the chap commanding them - Major General Qasem Soleimani. [ who has been described as something of an intelligence agent's ghost story] The former reason for their existence was something along hte lines of 'exporting the Revolution'; which later on morphed somewhat into acting as a combination paramilitary/special forces/intelligence/diplomatic/black ops organization dedicated to often decidedly unorthodox Iranian power projection. This became increasingly necessary in the wake of the Iran-Iraq war, which fairly convincingly suggested to the Iranians that conventional approaches - diplomacy and force of arms - weren't going to be particularly viable in advancing their geopolitical agenda.
If we look at their operational style, the Quds Force appears to do everything from building and co-ordinating with local forces in both advisory and command roles (for example, Shi'ite militias in Iraq, and the Syrian Army in Syria - they've also a very good longstanding relationship with Hezbollah), through to direct actions themselves in a battlefield context. However, they also occasionally get up to hijinks like attempting to hire a Mexican drug cartel to carry out a targeted assassination in Washington of the Saudi ambassador to the US (which, while it might sound pretty Alpha Legion ... loses XXth points because the guy they reached out to turned out to be a DEA plant, which is where the whole operation came unstuck ), and other such acts of nefarious arguable terrorism. More interestingly, though, they (or, rather, Soleimani) also appear to act as a bit of a diplomatic corps - with Soleimani allegedly playing a critical role in bringing the Russians on-board with the idea of intervening in the Syrian civil war [the account linked has Putin personally requesting Soleimani's involvement]; and even apparently securing the American withdrawal from Iraq that accompanied the formation of the Maliki government (which, obviously, made Iraq into that much more of an Iranian playground - a strategic aim achieved via political manipulation which oculd not have been done via bullets). There's also reports of Iranian diplomats directly taking orders from Soleimani [including a substantial period in 2001 wherien Soleimani appears to have been closely co-operating with the Americans in Afghanistan]; and of the Quds Force flooding particular warzones (whether late-2000s Iraq and Afghanistan, or present-day Yemen) with occasionally rather advanced weapons (such as the somewhat armour-piercing, motion-sensor triggered EFP bombs].
Now as applies the Alpha Legion, the foundations for a rather close comparison ought appear immediately and strikingly obvious. Instead of fighting conventionally, these guys engage in just about everything but - whilst still retaining the capacity to conventionally engage if necessary. Assassinations and working through local catspaws are one thing; but what really swayed me was the perspective that what these guys have effectively managed to do over the thirty or so years of their existence ... is build up an impressive Iranian sphere of influence stretching from eastern Afghanistan through to the Mediterranean in both Lebanon and Syria in ways that conventional military action by Iran would simply have been unable to (which puts Quds on a different level, arguably, to Mossad or whatever - because whilst Mossad's record of foreign operations is undeniably impressive, I don't think they've *quite* pulled off pulling together a reasonable swathe of an entire region of the globe under regional power suzerainty). This is not to say that large-scale interventions haven't taken place - of course htey have. But it's all the more impressive (in my book, anyway) when you manage to rope in Russia and a whole boatload of other forces to do your work for you.
Now THAT'S Alpha Legion!
On top of this, I did also consider elements in what's tenuously identified as the "Arabian way of war" as being fairly emblematic of the Alpha Legion. This account by a retired US Colonel with experience in the region highlights tendencies towards "evasion, delay and indirection [...] winning wars without battles". There's also some interesting remarks toward the end about a culture of outright falsehood when it comes to dealing with allies as part of a strategy of manipulation [for example, Sadat is supposed to have had an /entire secondary set of operational plans/ drawn up so as to fool the Syrians into doing what Egypt wanted against Israel in '73].
As an example of Egyptian strategic misdirection bearing fruit, the pre-engagement phases of Operation Badr spring to mind [the crossing of the Suez Canal which opened the Yom Kippur War]. Probably not nearly as sneaky as most sorts of things tha the XXth get up to (as the Israelis still effectively wound up with six hours' warning of the impending invastion), but still importantly effective (Israeli defensive plans were predicated upon having 48 hours' warning; and had it not been for the serious strength of misdirection and obfuscation employed by the Egyptians, would almost certainly have noticed and responded to the rather substantial troop-buildup taking place on their then-border - making the crossing of the Suez an unquestionable bloodbath).
Rounding out the profile for the Alpha Legion (because while there are many other potential examples to draw upon ... it's a quarter past five in the morning, and I'm trying to avoid excessive text-walling beyond what i've done already ) is probably Otto Skorzeny. In specia, not just his incredibly daring commando antics (including his Post-War activities as a sort of a Mossad agent - which hinged around his German targets presuming he was still .. well .. German-aligned rather than working for the people the Nazis hated most), but his role in Operation Greif as part of the Battle of the Bulge. Here, the unit he formed - Panzer Brigade 150 - made a point of having forces capable of speaking English, wearing American uniforms, and visually disguising German armoured vehicles as their rough Allied equivalents; with the goal of using the ensuing confusion and misdirection to seize two important bridges. This recalls rather strongly the Alpha Legion practice of repainting hteir armour or otherwise disguising themselves as other Legion forces. [which reaches some heights of ridicularity with the "I AM ALPHARIUS" ascended-meme ... and gets more than a little confusing during one of the Alpha Legion novels, in which Iron Hands disguised as Alpha Legion wind up engaged against Alpha Legion disguised as Iron Hands disguised as Alpha Legion or something]. [the "I am Alpharius" practice, apart from its obvious point of inspiration with "I am Spartacus", has quite some 20th century precedent to it as well]
Oh, and something I keep meaning to do is look into the historical precedents for the character of Mendacs in Liar's Due. Because again - THAT'S how the Alpha Legion wage war in my head. Not so much through Serpent Beneath style over-elaborate heist movie double-blind infiltrations [which are the bits we customarily see the most of]... but also by looking at the overarching strategic picture, and deploying the least effort possible (in this case, a single operative) to take an entire string of worlds in succession. I'm also a great fan of the implication from the third Black Book that Paramar V was taken for the express purpose of tying down the Warmaster's forces and thus subtly tilting the balance of the galactic conflict against the rebels for a bit; and would be mad interested in finding a real-world equivalency for this.
Anyway, I've once again gone wildly over-length ... but hopefully that's fleshed out some historical points of reference/inspiration for how the Alpha Legion might act. I can't stress enough how much I perceive the actual table-top engagements of the Alpha Legion to be an extreme minority of XXth Legion warfare - the "tip of the iceberg", if you will. Much of the time that the Emperor's forces wind up fighting the Alpha Legion, they probably don't have any idea that they're actually fighting the Alphas - either because the forces they're engaging are Legion catspaws, unwitting pawns [c.f the Orks against hte White Scars in the early scene from The Serpent Beneath], or disguised. And that many of the Alpha Legion's victories or strategic designs are events we don't actually wind up playing out on the tabletop (Inq28 possibly excepted) precisely because they use other tools like politics and diplomacy to accomplish outcomes without having to resort to battle. [with, of course, the obvious caveat that they remain Astartes, and fully ready to step unto the breach if their covert operations fail to properly come to fruition, or they're discovered in flagrante] [or, at the very least, the idea that the Alpha Legion you CAN see probably aren't all or most of them, and that they're doing something unexpected elsewhere while their distraction body holds your attention - which, by the time it's noticed, is alread ywell too late]
Doctrinal Comparison II: Word Bearers, and the Basij
Allllrighty. I had a few thoughts about a few different legions this evening. Will try and avoid Wall of Txt Syndrome [what can I say - I've got IVth on the brain ... we see something to be locked down, we build a wall on it].
First up, we have the Word Bearers. Now there are, obviously, any number of military forces over the millenia who have wholeheartedly embraced the idea of being Holy Warriors. It's a pretty potent and useful mechanism for building up/sustaining morale and Elan. And there's nothing like the righteous fervor of fighting an apostate-anathema for motivation.
But there are very different 'styles' if you like of Holy Armies, and I'd contend that just lumping them all together actually hides some serious differences (which are going to be somewhat instructive when it comes to talking about the Legion's engagement style and ORBAT development).
At their inception, we have the XVIIth acting in two or three roles. The first one of which is as something of a diplomatic corps - rolling up to the gates of an enemy settlement, issuing their ultimatims to cut it out with the religious practice and accept the Imperial Truth ... and then either dying after a protracted struggle against those not so keen to hear their message, or presumably assisting with the rebuilding of that society more along 'acceptable' Imperial lines.
The point of analogy for this is, arguably, not so much 'religious warriors' as special operations forces, with a dash of prelate and Herald [hence their original name]. A Green Beret of the 'fanatical anti-communist' flavour dispatched off up into the highlands, perhaps, who winds up finding something overly "collectivist" in the tribe he's sent to contact and reacting accordingly. Followed up by a full-blown "Total War" destruction-force after he gets turned down. "Apres moi, le deluge", indeed. [this latter phase might put one in the mind of some of the activities of the SS on the Eastern Front...]
Perhaps pre-their-own heresy WOrd Bearers might be regarded as comparable to the Teutonic Knights - particularly around the time of the Prussian Crusade. There, we had a force of heavily armed and armoured men (men, it must be remembered, so considerably above the levies they also went into battle with) who took the fight to the heathens of the Baltic (who, at this time, were still nominally pagan) with the aim of evangelism. There are, of course, numerous other examples of 'holy warrior' or zealot troops (including hte literal Zealots/Sicarii) drawn from history and fiction (the mind instantly recalls a litany of Levantine and further East examples); but it's occasionally questionable as to how appropriate the operational comparisons are with Astartes warfare, as many (but not all) of these forces tend to operate as light infantry for a variety of reasons (the Mujahideen, for instance, or Hezbollah). Somebody's already mentioned ISIS - and perhaps there is an instructive parallel there, given the effort which ISIS has put upon capturing and destroying sites of archaeological significance [which is certainly what hte 'Iconoclasts' are around for]. [another obvious point of reference would be the Taliban - both in general, and via doing things like blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas]
Anyway, things start to change rather severely when they make their transition over to the side of the Great Enemy (predictably) - not just due to their newfound predilection for DECIDEDLY asymmetric warfare (in the form of warpcraft, conjuring warpstorms, slicing their way through reality as a rapid-deployment method, and all the rest of it ... to say nothing of employing both daemons and daemon-possessed shock troops) ... but ALSO because we start to see their incorporation of un- or less-augmented human detachments (represented by the Imperialis Militia/Warp Cults list).
The battlefield role for Warp Cults ranges from simple screening-troops and cannon-fodder (there's the lines in the relevant Black Book about Ultramarine forces having to expend waaaay too much of their ammunition gunning down cultists so that they're in a less-prepared position to deal with hteir twisted masters) through to strategic redirection and distraction (i.e. "we've got to deal with the ten thousand screaming cultists over *here* ... and hope like hell that the isolated strongpoint a few kilometers over *there* can hold out by itself because we just can't spare the troops"). I would also contend that it's quite likely for the cultists in questoin to be used for um ... well, to put it bluntly, like how Grotz are stated to be used by Ork forces. That is to say, mine-clearing (without being combat engineeers, if you get my drift) recon-in-strength (or, at least, numbers masquerading as strength), and all hte rest of it. Oh, and on top of this, the effect of engaging Warp Cults on the average Imperial Soldier or even Marine must have been seriously rattling. Youv'e got absolutely fanatical troops dying in droves who just /keep coming/. Walk straight through minefields in perfect order; and are probably mutated, covered in sigils that hurt the eeyes, and screaming or chanting the whole time. In other words, "shock troops" after a sort.
Now, all of the above reminds me VERY STRONGLY of one modern force in particular. And despite what some might be thinking ... no, it ain't the Soviets.
Instead, it's the Basij Militia as employed during the Iran-Iraq War by the Iranians. Particularly due to the way it operated as a separate (and decidedly less competent/well-equipped) force to the conventional Iranian Army - esp. in the mmid phases of the conflict. (which is actually where things started to go seriously awry - as the forces stopped acting in co-ordination, at least partially due to political pressures, so the massed human wave attacks of the Basij which had been so successful in concert with conventional military (tanks, air attacks etc.) in the early war when driving the Iraqis out of Iran ... weren't nearly as useful once the fighting started taking place on the Iraqi soil in '83/'84 in hte absence of such support).
The particular incident which reallyd rove this home for me was reading about Operation Before The Dawn which was carried out in February of 1983 toward al-Amarah. There's probably an element of propaganda in reports and estimates that the literal /tens of thousands/ of casualties sustained by the Basij (who occasionally weren't even armed) were the result of Shi'ite drives toward martyrdom ... but the fact remains nominal zealots that attempting to clear a path through the defensive lines, obstacles and minefields of the Iraqis for better troops, armour and all the rest of it ... is pretty much exactly how I view the Word Bearers operating.
There's also other elements drawn from the Iran-Iraq war (on both sides) which resonate (at least somewhat) with Calth etc. - in particular, the Iraqis' decision to undertake crippling surprise attacks on Iranian staging points via both chemical and conventional weapons; as well as the subsequent War of the Cities (because really, attempting to obliterate major population centers as a morale-tool is pretty much one of the things that the betrayal at Calth was ... in addition, obviously, to helping to seriously mess up logistics and communication-lines via the Ruinstorm, and crippling Imperial forces in the area in a combination of surprise attack, bombardment, decisive battle, and tarpitting through the Underworld War).
Now as applies the Word Bearers themselves ... a few other points potentially spring to mind.
The Gal Vorbak themselves remind me for some reason of the stories about North Korean troops during the Korean War being dosed up on methamphetamine or whatever, and then sent careening towards Allied/UN lines - with their limbs bound by thick ropes to both absorb somewhat bullet impacts, as well as to keep their limbs slightly together and functional in cases of broken bones from percussive impact shock. We can also draw a broader analogy between the general zealot disposition of the Word Bearers and their 'human' cohorts and the widespread use of amphetamines and other stimulant drugs in Middle Eastern conflicts such as the one presently raging in Syria. [I personally think that a lot of the attrocity level stuff happening in particular wars has quite a lot to do with whether the troops in question are on these sorts of drugs - c.f the SS and Pervitin - but that's a bit of a digression. Certainly provides a bit of a template for force-behavior -the comparison between being jacked up on meth versus jacked up on warp-dust]
The use of propaganda-warfare by ISIS is also something resonant with the WOrd Bearers' way of war. As we can see a pretty direct parallel between execution videos and all hte rest of it with the XVIIth's flooding of comms relays with pretty messy sounding stuff [particularly because one of the impicitly desired effects of both of htese things is as a recruitment tool - although an Imperial trooper whose mind breaks upon seeing a chaotic sigil appear on a vidscreen may be a bit of a different kettle of fish from somebody who flies cross-continents to join up with ISIS].
First up, we have the Word Bearers. Now there are, obviously, any number of military forces over the millenia who have wholeheartedly embraced the idea of being Holy Warriors. It's a pretty potent and useful mechanism for building up/sustaining morale and Elan. And there's nothing like the righteous fervor of fighting an apostate-anathema for motivation.
But there are very different 'styles' if you like of Holy Armies, and I'd contend that just lumping them all together actually hides some serious differences (which are going to be somewhat instructive when it comes to talking about the Legion's engagement style and ORBAT development).
At their inception, we have the XVIIth acting in two or three roles. The first one of which is as something of a diplomatic corps - rolling up to the gates of an enemy settlement, issuing their ultimatims to cut it out with the religious practice and accept the Imperial Truth ... and then either dying after a protracted struggle against those not so keen to hear their message, or presumably assisting with the rebuilding of that society more along 'acceptable' Imperial lines.
The point of analogy for this is, arguably, not so much 'religious warriors' as special operations forces, with a dash of prelate and Herald [hence their original name]. A Green Beret of the 'fanatical anti-communist' flavour dispatched off up into the highlands, perhaps, who winds up finding something overly "collectivist" in the tribe he's sent to contact and reacting accordingly. Followed up by a full-blown "Total War" destruction-force after he gets turned down. "Apres moi, le deluge", indeed. [this latter phase might put one in the mind of some of the activities of the SS on the Eastern Front...]
Perhaps pre-their-own heresy WOrd Bearers might be regarded as comparable to the Teutonic Knights - particularly around the time of the Prussian Crusade. There, we had a force of heavily armed and armoured men (men, it must be remembered, so considerably above the levies they also went into battle with) who took the fight to the heathens of the Baltic (who, at this time, were still nominally pagan) with the aim of evangelism. There are, of course, numerous other examples of 'holy warrior' or zealot troops (including hte literal Zealots/Sicarii) drawn from history and fiction (the mind instantly recalls a litany of Levantine and further East examples); but it's occasionally questionable as to how appropriate the operational comparisons are with Astartes warfare, as many (but not all) of these forces tend to operate as light infantry for a variety of reasons (the Mujahideen, for instance, or Hezbollah). Somebody's already mentioned ISIS - and perhaps there is an instructive parallel there, given the effort which ISIS has put upon capturing and destroying sites of archaeological significance [which is certainly what hte 'Iconoclasts' are around for]. [another obvious point of reference would be the Taliban - both in general, and via doing things like blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas]
Anyway, things start to change rather severely when they make their transition over to the side of the Great Enemy (predictably) - not just due to their newfound predilection for DECIDEDLY asymmetric warfare (in the form of warpcraft, conjuring warpstorms, slicing their way through reality as a rapid-deployment method, and all the rest of it ... to say nothing of employing both daemons and daemon-possessed shock troops) ... but ALSO because we start to see their incorporation of un- or less-augmented human detachments (represented by the Imperialis Militia/Warp Cults list).
The battlefield role for Warp Cults ranges from simple screening-troops and cannon-fodder (there's the lines in the relevant Black Book about Ultramarine forces having to expend waaaay too much of their ammunition gunning down cultists so that they're in a less-prepared position to deal with hteir twisted masters) through to strategic redirection and distraction (i.e. "we've got to deal with the ten thousand screaming cultists over *here* ... and hope like hell that the isolated strongpoint a few kilometers over *there* can hold out by itself because we just can't spare the troops"). I would also contend that it's quite likely for the cultists in questoin to be used for um ... well, to put it bluntly, like how Grotz are stated to be used by Ork forces. That is to say, mine-clearing (without being combat engineeers, if you get my drift) recon-in-strength (or, at least, numbers masquerading as strength), and all hte rest of it. Oh, and on top of this, the effect of engaging Warp Cults on the average Imperial Soldier or even Marine must have been seriously rattling. Youv'e got absolutely fanatical troops dying in droves who just /keep coming/. Walk straight through minefields in perfect order; and are probably mutated, covered in sigils that hurt the eeyes, and screaming or chanting the whole time. In other words, "shock troops" after a sort.
Now, all of the above reminds me VERY STRONGLY of one modern force in particular. And despite what some might be thinking ... no, it ain't the Soviets.
Instead, it's the Basij Militia as employed during the Iran-Iraq War by the Iranians. Particularly due to the way it operated as a separate (and decidedly less competent/well-equipped) force to the conventional Iranian Army - esp. in the mmid phases of the conflict. (which is actually where things started to go seriously awry - as the forces stopped acting in co-ordination, at least partially due to political pressures, so the massed human wave attacks of the Basij which had been so successful in concert with conventional military (tanks, air attacks etc.) in the early war when driving the Iraqis out of Iran ... weren't nearly as useful once the fighting started taking place on the Iraqi soil in '83/'84 in hte absence of such support).
The particular incident which reallyd rove this home for me was reading about Operation Before The Dawn which was carried out in February of 1983 toward al-Amarah. There's probably an element of propaganda in reports and estimates that the literal /tens of thousands/ of casualties sustained by the Basij (who occasionally weren't even armed) were the result of Shi'ite drives toward martyrdom ... but the fact remains nominal zealots that attempting to clear a path through the defensive lines, obstacles and minefields of the Iraqis for better troops, armour and all the rest of it ... is pretty much exactly how I view the Word Bearers operating.
There's also other elements drawn from the Iran-Iraq war (on both sides) which resonate (at least somewhat) with Calth etc. - in particular, the Iraqis' decision to undertake crippling surprise attacks on Iranian staging points via both chemical and conventional weapons; as well as the subsequent War of the Cities (because really, attempting to obliterate major population centers as a morale-tool is pretty much one of the things that the betrayal at Calth was ... in addition, obviously, to helping to seriously mess up logistics and communication-lines via the Ruinstorm, and crippling Imperial forces in the area in a combination of surprise attack, bombardment, decisive battle, and tarpitting through the Underworld War).
Now as applies the Word Bearers themselves ... a few other points potentially spring to mind.
The Gal Vorbak themselves remind me for some reason of the stories about North Korean troops during the Korean War being dosed up on methamphetamine or whatever, and then sent careening towards Allied/UN lines - with their limbs bound by thick ropes to both absorb somewhat bullet impacts, as well as to keep their limbs slightly together and functional in cases of broken bones from percussive impact shock. We can also draw a broader analogy between the general zealot disposition of the Word Bearers and their 'human' cohorts and the widespread use of amphetamines and other stimulant drugs in Middle Eastern conflicts such as the one presently raging in Syria. [I personally think that a lot of the attrocity level stuff happening in particular wars has quite a lot to do with whether the troops in question are on these sorts of drugs - c.f the SS and Pervitin - but that's a bit of a digression. Certainly provides a bit of a template for force-behavior -the comparison between being jacked up on meth versus jacked up on warp-dust]
The use of propaganda-warfare by ISIS is also something resonant with the WOrd Bearers' way of war. As we can see a pretty direct parallel between execution videos and all hte rest of it with the XVIIth's flooding of comms relays with pretty messy sounding stuff [particularly because one of the impicitly desired effects of both of htese things is as a recruitment tool - although an Imperial trooper whose mind breaks upon seeing a chaotic sigil appear on a vidscreen may be a bit of a different kettle of fish from somebody who flies cross-continents to join up with ISIS].
Doctrinal Comparison Series: Iron Warriors & Soviets, Hezbollah Etc.
First:
Speaking to the Iron Warriors ... I'd suggest that what we're actually dealing with is, in no small part, a sort of combination of Ottoman (and/or Persian) and Soviet doctrines.
The Near Eastern influences aren't just obvious in some of hte naming conventions [Stor-Bezashk] and Black Book Fluff [although try as I might, I'm not yet able to track down an iron-clad identification for Sek-Amrak or whatever it was that formed the Legion's original mustering-ground]. Instead, if we consider the Byzantine (and others') experience of engaging the East, we often tend to hear about absolutely cyclopean siege engines deployed against otherwise-impregnable walls.
Now, this leads rather handily onto the Soviet comparison. For which I shall focus on two elements. The first is, unquestionably, the Standard Soviet Armoured Vehicle Design - which basically comprises THE PEOPLE'S TRIUMPHANT PROGRESSIVE CANNON on tracks and with as much frontal armour as necessary (also in a surprisingly high-tech package is all of the above). As applies assault guns and the like, I think there's an obvious parallel between the Soviets' IS-152s etc. and Iron Warriors' innovations/preferred support gear [see, for instance, Perturabo working with the Mechanicum to produce the Typhon]. And we can also sketch out some other similarities based around the Soviets' long-running love of massed artillery barrages.
But the similarities don't end there. As we know from generations of Hollywood propaganda "history" [and, for that matter, a certain level of fact], the Soviet way of war seemed to emphasize approaching conflict as an arithmetical equation. The trading of men for distance, and time during the first half of hte 2nd World War is probably the best example of this. It's a pretty common element, tbh, of modern grand-strategy level warfare ... but the Soviets (whether due to their command's own mentality or simply due to the realities of the situation) seemed to take it up to a real next level of application.
As this compares back to the Glorious IVth ... well ... I'm pretty sure in the relevant Black Book (and possibly ANgel Exterminatus), exactly this approach winds up coming through. We could also argue that their relative immunity to shooting-based morale depletion (i.e. the notion that forcing them off an objective or out of a building tends to require their actual destruction through sheer weight of fire) may be reflective of the whole "NOT ONE STEP BACK" directive of Stalinesque fame.
Now, talking of specific styles of engagement ... the relevant Rites of War may be a good baseline here.
Ironfire is, as everybody knows, yet another re-invention of the Walking Barrage employment of artillery. What makes it arguably different is i) the scale of the guns used in its first employment; ii) the integration of MIUs etc. for unprecedented fire-control (again, applied to the novella); and iii) its use to directly cover and clear a path for a rapid armoured advance.
This makes for something a bit different to the standard "Power Armoured WWI" trench-running vibe; as the application of precision-bombardment as a force multiplier arguably seems to resemble far more modern warfare more closely than the relatively crude bombardments of warfare a century ago. Again, Soviet (although in this case, perhaps mid-late Cold War Russians, rather than their WWII predecessors) forces spring to mind. Although it also occurs that many mid-late 20th century forces have attempted to do at least vaguely similar things [and the German obsession with reeeeaalllyy biiiiggg artillery during the Second World War instantly springs to mind]
Hammer of Olympia is probably relatively straight armoured warfare. Although it did occur to me that there's perhaps an argument for a comparison with late-20th century Israelis. In specia, dedicated measures to increase vehicle survivability [my first thought was the German innovations in this area, however] and rolling through destroying buildings.
Having said that, it did also occur to me that there are elements of Hezbollah in the way the Iron Warriors fight on the defensive. Forget the stereotype of WWI trenches or Vauban star-forts (as aesthetic as they can be) ... read up about the Nature Reserves Hezbollah employed in the 2006 conflict and tell me it doesn't remind you of something In specia, the engagement at Maroun al Ras, wherein Israeli special forces sent to investigate/disable a Hezbollah launch-site wound up stumbling on a seriously sophisticated bunker complex and taking heavy casualties as a result. I know the parallel's a bit of a loose one, but I couldn't help but be reminded somewaht of the Iron Cage incident - in specia, how a strategically less-relevant objective is used to draw in a force, which doesn't realize what they're getting into (i.e. an elaborate danger-zone - the Nature Reserves were literally described as "killing boxes" by some), and then sustains surprisingly high losses as a result. These structures were sufficiently advanced and effective [seriously - check the description of how far deep underground and well fortified they were] that the IDF basically wound up instituting a policy of avoiding rather than engaging the Nature Reserves for the rest of the War.
Now, dependent upon local Iron Warrior commanders and situations, there are a litany of other historical doctrines which could potentially form an influence on how a given IVth force operates. We often hear a lot about large (and relatively static) artillery; but the number of vehicles configured for a 'tank destroyer' role which the Iron Warriors appear to have suggests that they must also make use of both i) the standard "ambush" approach for jagdpanzers [i.e. fire and withdraw]; as well as, potentially, older styles of engagement. The innovations of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden during the Thirty Years' War concerning the employment of mobile lighter artillery spring instantly to mind.
A further set of possibilities can be addeuced from the Iron Warriors' large-scale engagement at Tallarn. Obviously, as prettty much THE largest armoured conflict in Imperial history, forces associated with highly mobile tank warfare will be a logical point of comparison/inspiration. Although in my head Tallarn plays out rather more like '73 Easting than it does the Fall of France. But something else springs to mind. The opening bombardment of the planet is not conducted via conventional means - but instead, the application of a virulent biological weapon. An argument could be made that this is an updating of the employment of chemical agents which wreathed the battlefields of the Western Front in the First World War in awful mustard ... but I suspect the closer analogy may be with the NBC threat of the Cold War battlefield [hence the importance of combatant vehicles having environmental seals, etc.] - or, more darkly, the use of what are strictlly speaking not chemical weapons but 'battlefield tools' by a variety of powers which have hugely detrimental effects for both local environment and population [I am thinking here, chiefly of US use of Agent Orange in Vietnam as a defoliant - which, obviously, the virus used on Tallarn is ... along with everything else; but also of Israeli use of White Phosphorus for the nominal purpose of battlefield illumination in more recent years].
Oh, something else which just occurred to me ... check out this writeup on Ruapekapeka Pa ["The Bat's Nest" fortification]. Basically, the local Maori built a deceptively simple looking yet seriously advanced fortification, in an area of no strategic value, as a deliberate insult to the British - effectively challenging them to come and take it. And then, once the British *did* manage to fight their way in, withdrawing to leave them with an empty prize (with speculation that an ambush was about to be effected which would have been even more costly for the attackers). Remind you of any particular Iron Warriors famous engagements?
Anyway; I don't think it's easily possible to reduce the Iron Warriors' ways of war down to a single army or a single era's historical influence. I also think that it's a considerable misperception to just peg them as "The Siegemasters" (ironic, I know, given that this is exactly how a fairly large swathe of the Imperium's Crusade Command seemed to regard them). Instead, we have a mish-mash of potential flavorings based around largely fairly recent (i.e. last 70-80 years or so) set of technological and tactical employments.
Perhaps the Legion's noted salience of praevians might invoke the 21st century's newfound emphasis upon drones
Speaking to the Iron Warriors ... I'd suggest that what we're actually dealing with is, in no small part, a sort of combination of Ottoman (and/or Persian) and Soviet doctrines.
The Near Eastern influences aren't just obvious in some of hte naming conventions [Stor-Bezashk] and Black Book Fluff [although try as I might, I'm not yet able to track down an iron-clad identification for Sek-Amrak or whatever it was that formed the Legion's original mustering-ground]. Instead, if we consider the Byzantine (and others') experience of engaging the East, we often tend to hear about absolutely cyclopean siege engines deployed against otherwise-impregnable walls.
Now, this leads rather handily onto the Soviet comparison. For which I shall focus on two elements. The first is, unquestionably, the Standard Soviet Armoured Vehicle Design - which basically comprises THE PEOPLE'S TRIUMPHANT PROGRESSIVE CANNON on tracks and with as much frontal armour as necessary (also in a surprisingly high-tech package is all of the above). As applies assault guns and the like, I think there's an obvious parallel between the Soviets' IS-152s etc. and Iron Warriors' innovations/preferred support gear [see, for instance, Perturabo working with the Mechanicum to produce the Typhon]. And we can also sketch out some other similarities based around the Soviets' long-running love of massed artillery barrages.
But the similarities don't end there. As we know from generations of Hollywood propaganda "history" [and, for that matter, a certain level of fact], the Soviet way of war seemed to emphasize approaching conflict as an arithmetical equation. The trading of men for distance, and time during the first half of hte 2nd World War is probably the best example of this. It's a pretty common element, tbh, of modern grand-strategy level warfare ... but the Soviets (whether due to their command's own mentality or simply due to the realities of the situation) seemed to take it up to a real next level of application.
As this compares back to the Glorious IVth ... well ... I'm pretty sure in the relevant Black Book (and possibly ANgel Exterminatus), exactly this approach winds up coming through. We could also argue that their relative immunity to shooting-based morale depletion (i.e. the notion that forcing them off an objective or out of a building tends to require their actual destruction through sheer weight of fire) may be reflective of the whole "NOT ONE STEP BACK" directive of Stalinesque fame.
Now, talking of specific styles of engagement ... the relevant Rites of War may be a good baseline here.
Ironfire is, as everybody knows, yet another re-invention of the Walking Barrage employment of artillery. What makes it arguably different is i) the scale of the guns used in its first employment; ii) the integration of MIUs etc. for unprecedented fire-control (again, applied to the novella); and iii) its use to directly cover and clear a path for a rapid armoured advance.
This makes for something a bit different to the standard "Power Armoured WWI" trench-running vibe; as the application of precision-bombardment as a force multiplier arguably seems to resemble far more modern warfare more closely than the relatively crude bombardments of warfare a century ago. Again, Soviet (although in this case, perhaps mid-late Cold War Russians, rather than their WWII predecessors) forces spring to mind. Although it also occurs that many mid-late 20th century forces have attempted to do at least vaguely similar things [and the German obsession with reeeeaalllyy biiiiggg artillery during the Second World War instantly springs to mind]
Hammer of Olympia is probably relatively straight armoured warfare. Although it did occur to me that there's perhaps an argument for a comparison with late-20th century Israelis. In specia, dedicated measures to increase vehicle survivability [my first thought was the German innovations in this area, however] and rolling through destroying buildings.
Having said that, it did also occur to me that there are elements of Hezbollah in the way the Iron Warriors fight on the defensive. Forget the stereotype of WWI trenches or Vauban star-forts (as aesthetic as they can be) ... read up about the Nature Reserves Hezbollah employed in the 2006 conflict and tell me it doesn't remind you of something In specia, the engagement at Maroun al Ras, wherein Israeli special forces sent to investigate/disable a Hezbollah launch-site wound up stumbling on a seriously sophisticated bunker complex and taking heavy casualties as a result. I know the parallel's a bit of a loose one, but I couldn't help but be reminded somewaht of the Iron Cage incident - in specia, how a strategically less-relevant objective is used to draw in a force, which doesn't realize what they're getting into (i.e. an elaborate danger-zone - the Nature Reserves were literally described as "killing boxes" by some), and then sustains surprisingly high losses as a result. These structures were sufficiently advanced and effective [seriously - check the description of how far deep underground and well fortified they were] that the IDF basically wound up instituting a policy of avoiding rather than engaging the Nature Reserves for the rest of the War.
Now, dependent upon local Iron Warrior commanders and situations, there are a litany of other historical doctrines which could potentially form an influence on how a given IVth force operates. We often hear a lot about large (and relatively static) artillery; but the number of vehicles configured for a 'tank destroyer' role which the Iron Warriors appear to have suggests that they must also make use of both i) the standard "ambush" approach for jagdpanzers [i.e. fire and withdraw]; as well as, potentially, older styles of engagement. The innovations of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden during the Thirty Years' War concerning the employment of mobile lighter artillery spring instantly to mind.
A further set of possibilities can be addeuced from the Iron Warriors' large-scale engagement at Tallarn. Obviously, as prettty much THE largest armoured conflict in Imperial history, forces associated with highly mobile tank warfare will be a logical point of comparison/inspiration. Although in my head Tallarn plays out rather more like '73 Easting than it does the Fall of France. But something else springs to mind. The opening bombardment of the planet is not conducted via conventional means - but instead, the application of a virulent biological weapon. An argument could be made that this is an updating of the employment of chemical agents which wreathed the battlefields of the Western Front in the First World War in awful mustard ... but I suspect the closer analogy may be with the NBC threat of the Cold War battlefield [hence the importance of combatant vehicles having environmental seals, etc.] - or, more darkly, the use of what are strictlly speaking not chemical weapons but 'battlefield tools' by a variety of powers which have hugely detrimental effects for both local environment and population [I am thinking here, chiefly of US use of Agent Orange in Vietnam as a defoliant - which, obviously, the virus used on Tallarn is ... along with everything else; but also of Israeli use of White Phosphorus for the nominal purpose of battlefield illumination in more recent years].
Oh, something else which just occurred to me ... check out this writeup on Ruapekapeka Pa ["The Bat's Nest" fortification]. Basically, the local Maori built a deceptively simple looking yet seriously advanced fortification, in an area of no strategic value, as a deliberate insult to the British - effectively challenging them to come and take it. And then, once the British *did* manage to fight their way in, withdrawing to leave them with an empty prize (with speculation that an ambush was about to be effected which would have been even more costly for the attackers). Remind you of any particular Iron Warriors famous engagements?
Anyway; I don't think it's easily possible to reduce the Iron Warriors' ways of war down to a single army or a single era's historical influence. I also think that it's a considerable misperception to just peg them as "The Siegemasters" (ironic, I know, given that this is exactly how a fairly large swathe of the Imperium's Crusade Command seemed to regard them). Instead, we have a mish-mash of potential flavorings based around largely fairly recent (i.e. last 70-80 years or so) set of technological and tactical employments.
Perhaps the Legion's noted salience of praevians might invoke the 21st century's newfound emphasis upon drones
Legiones Astartes Doctrinal Comparison With Real-World History [Intro]
Recently, I had the pleasure of participating in a very stimulating discussion over on B&C as to the above. That thread wound up locked due to a pre-emptive Mod decision to head off a trans-Atlantic argument betwixt British and American posters about .. well .. their respective countries' military prestige and who was most associated with what.
Unfortunate.
However, I *do* think that there's quite a valuable field to be explored here in light of the importance of 'fleshing out' the various 30k legions, so I'm going to repost my contributions to that thread here for posterity [read: in case the whole thing disappears :/ ]
Unfortunate.
However, I *do* think that there's quite a valuable field to be explored here in light of the importance of 'fleshing out' the various 30k legions, so I'm going to repost my contributions to that thread here for posterity [read: in case the whole thing disappears :/ ]
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)