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
No comments:
Post a Comment