Chenkov's womanizing ways

[entendre_entendre]

It says in the IG Codex on p.65 that Commander Chenkov:
"... will willingly throw his men at the heavily defended walls of a fortress if it will eventually bring them crashing down."

Sound like someone we know?

"Killbots? A trifle. It was simply a matter of outsmarting them. You see, Killbots have a pre-set kill limit, knowing their weakness, i sent wave after wave of my own men at them, until they reached their limit and shut down." - Zapp Brannigan

so, does anyone else have any other funny 40k character comparisons?

[Mike X]

I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but what do either of these quotes have to do with womanizing?

[grimm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapp_Branniganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapp_Brannigan

[Lerra]

Clearly, he is a womanizer because he kills off all of his competitors.

[RocketRollRebel]

It was a sad day for robots hahaha

[Mike X]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapp_Brannigan

Thanks, I don't watch Futurama so I didn't understand at all. I actually thought "Zapp Brannigan" was a character in the IG codex or something.

[Dark_Templar]

I actually thought "Zapp Brannigan" was a character in the IG codex or something.

I wish. His special order could be "Horny" and he grants "Sexlexia" to all friendly male units within 12".

[Old_Paladin]

I don't see Chenkov being any different then half of the other Imperial commanders out there.
Most of them solve the problem by just throwing bodies at it, until the issue goes away; there's always more where that came from (lives are cheap, lasguns get expensive).

[Melissia]

I don't see Chenkov being any different then half of the other Imperial commanders out there.
Most of them solve the problem by just throwing bodies at it, until the issue goes away; there's always more where that came from (lives are cheap, lasguns get expensive).

I beg to differ; the Imperial Guard in general is not as incompetent as Chenkov.

[Old_Paladin]

I beg to differ; the Imperial Guard in general is not as incompetent as Chenkov.

In the greater picture, there is no such thing as competence; only victory or failure. And Chenkov always wins. The more important part is that he wins quickly; why grind out a seige for years, when he can win in a few weeks. How many lives would have been saved in the second world war if the allies led 10 million soldiers to their deaths, but the war was over in 8 months (at that point the Americans wouldn't have even had to join the war effort).
I mean, this is the same codex that has notes such as "16 addition regiments dispatched; victory assured within the decade" and the Valhallen 1212th death march to victory.

The day Chenkov uses those men and fails to win, is the day he'll get a Bolter round to the head for 'incompetence'.

[Melissia]

Chenkov only "fails to win" because of plot armor. He is truly incompetent, a moron who callously wastes resources that could be better used elsewhere. Honestly he's more likely to get a lasgun to the side of the head than a bolter, because his own men would despise him so much. Especially since he apparently likes to lead from the front. People have arranged friendly fire accidents and "enemy sniper fire" incidents for far less.

[Col.Gravis]

Probably true Melissia, but then the background would have us believe the same is true of the majority of the Senior Officer class in the Imperial Guard, it's a grim dark place in the 41st Millenium, life is cheap when you count the life of worlds rather then individuals. Modern 'morals' in the respect of preserving life have no place there.

'The ends justifies the means' as the quote goes.

[Melissia]

If the ends justified the means, the Imperium would have turned to Chaos long ago, because certainly mutation does have benefits that can lead to victory, no matter how abhorrent, and the power of witches is undeniable.

But they don't. Not even in 40K is that statement completely true. A Pyhrric victory is a lesser victory.

[Col.Gravis]

Depends on what we're talking about, I agree if the Corruption of Chaos was accepted the Imperium would be damned long ago, but that is utterly different to being prepared to spend what is essentially the most common resource in the Imperium, manpower.

[Melissia]

There is a difference between spending a resource and wasting it.

Yes, you could use a lascannon to hunt down grots, but when there's a tank coming your way, there's better ways to use that lascannon. Yes, you could purchase a lasgun for 1000 thrones-- they'll gladly take your Thrones (the official currency of the Imperium)-- but dear Emperor why WOULD you?

[Col.Gravis]

True again, can't argue with the logic at all by our standards, but in the setting we're playing a game in the standards simply are'nt the same.

In 40k from the perspective of those in control the life of soliders in a few regiments is worthless, if anything their equipment is far more a valuable resource but thats still not much when we're talking regular grunts, why go through of fighting a protracted, intelligently fought campaign using expensive resources and time to preserve those lives, all that hassel! Why not instead chuck a few extra regiments into a frontal assault, accept the casulaties, achieve the objective and move on - afterall with a limitless supply of manpower they can simply raise new regiments. And if anyone objects, well you crush them.

It's a mindset that is difficult to take in a way, with good reason, it's abhorant - which is why so many Guard players love the concept of things like Colonel-Commissar Gaunt fighting to preserve every last fighting man he can.

[Melissia]

I'm not looking at it from a humanitarian standpoint even. Yes, you could fire enough lasguns at a leman russ that one could very possibly get through a vision slit and kill the gunner, or maybe you could accidently cook off the fuel or ammunition simply by getting it so hot through so much combined lasgun fire.

... or you could just position a single heavy weapons team to ambush it and fire a krak missile up its *** and send those lasguns somewhere else where they can actually do some good.

[Gotthammer]

"Men, you're lucky men. Soon, you'll all be fighting for your planet. Many of you will be dying for your planet. A few of you will be put through a fine mesh screen for your planet."




"They will be the luckiest of all."



-

[Col.Gravis]

Yeah...

Not getting your point here as that seems a very random example, if your talking about Chenkov as a field commander still theres nothing to suggest that he would'nt make use of the weapons at his disposal, only plenty of examples where he lacks the ideal tools for the job, so uses what he does have at his disposal, manpower, to clear a minefield for example.

If your referring to my points regarding life being cheap your reference is too small beneath the notice of those on the upper most levels of the chain of command, a regiment is a regiment, it is the responsibility of the planetary overlord who provided it to ensure it is properly equiped, if it is not they'll deal with him later, though given how slow the cogs of the Munitorum and the Adminstratum turn it could be a few hundred years.

[Nabterayl]

I think this is a question about Chenkov (and for that matter the Guard as a whole) that the lore doesn't really answer for us. If Chenkov can spend a million men in a week to achieve a victory, rather than spending five million men in five years to achieve the same victory, that's not necessarily incompetence. Cold-blooded, yes, but not necessarily incompetent.

I think the question that naturally springs to mind with people like Chenkov is, "Why would you have to do that?" Under what circumstances would you have to throw infantry at a fortress wall to bring it down, rather than bringing it down with artillery? Under what circumstances would you have to clear a minefield by marching infantry across it, rather than using minesweepers or mine-clearing vehicles?

The truth is, I submit, that we don't know. Even some of Chenkov's codex entry makes tactical sense. "Sacrificing" platoons to prevent sappers from being discovered is known as a diversionary attack. Sending in additional squads to pin an enemy in place until artillery can be brought to bear? Also perfectly reasonable, even by modern standards.

The great unanswered question is whether commanders like Chenkov do what they do because they're too unimaginative to find a better way, or because they don't have the tools to do it "right." Suppose you need an artillery regiment to reduce a fortress wall in a week, but you don't have an artillery regiment - or you do, but you don't have enough ammunition to do the job. Suppose you could also penetrate the fortress wall with five infantry regiments, which you do have. What do you do? Sit around and whine to the Munitorum that they aren't supporting you properly? Wait for the proper tools to arrive? What if the week timetable is important?

The impression I get is that the Guard finds itself in this sort of situation more often than not, even in large operations.

[Old_Paladin]

If the ends justified the means, the Imperium would have turned to Chaos long ago, because certainly mutation does have benefits... But they don't.

But they do!
The Navigators Guild, the Adeptus Astra Telepathica, squats, ogryns, even Space Marines.
They uses plenty of mutants/non-humans without falling to chaos.
They also hate aliens, and seek their destruction; yet they are willing to use them from time to time, for their own gains.

For every Ibram Gaunt, that cares about his followers and sees them as human beings; there is always a Chenkov.
For every Slaydo, who's victory lies from great planning; there is a Macaroth, who's victory lies within bold risks and great luck.

@Nab:
In the case of Chenkov, I actually doubt that he lacks anything. I think it's more a combination of patence and caring. He wants things done fast, and he doesn't see his troops as people, merely tools.
He doesn't pound the fortress with artillery, because that would waste his time (moving them into place, waiting for the guns to pound it flat, then having to send in the infantry; he'll just move to step 3 right away).
He is the typical example of the extreme of imperial thought. It's just a bunch of number crunching (when the things actually being crunched are living people). It's the grim-dark future where there is only war.
It's the same system that gives no thought or feeling about feeding 10,000 souls a day to feed a corpse in a shiny chair!

[Nabterayl]

In the case of Chenkov, I actually doubt that he lacks anything. I think it's more a combination of patence and caring. He wants things done fast, and he doesn't see his troops as people, merely tools.
He doesn't pound the fortress with artillery, because that would waste his time (moving them into place, waiting for the guns to pound it flat, then having to send in the infantry; he'll just move to step 3 right away).
He is the typical example of the extreme of imperial thought. It's just a bunch of number crunching (when the things actually being crunched are living people). It's the grim-dark future where there is only war.
It's the same system that gives no thought or feeling about feeding 10,000 souls a day to feed a corpse in a shiny chair!
I agree that he probably doesn't see it the way I do. But even the IG codex gives the examples of Kotrax and Trenk Ravine, which certainly seem to be cases where he didn't have the proper tools for the job to hand.

On the subject of plot armor, it's interesting to compare Chenkov and Zuehlke (first Lord Commander of the Vraks campaign). Zuehlke put together a very "Chenkov-style" plan that involved expending a set number of assets (including men) over a set span of time in a set area ... and got it badly wrong. If Chenkov's win-loss record is as good as the codex suggests (which it probably isn't, since this is his codex, though it probably is extraordinary), then it seems like his real genius is for making those sorts of calculations correctly, and knowing when he has the option to fling infantry men at a problem and still succeed in his overall objectives.

[Melissia]

I still don't see it. To me, it's more of a story of someone whom is willfully and flagrantly wasteful and callous rather than an actual intelligent strategy.

[Nabterayl]

I still don't see it. To me, it's more of a story of someone whom is willfully and flagrantly wasteful and callous rather than an actual intelligent strategy.
Well, for Chenkov, I think that element is there. But I also see the following, all emphasis added:


1. Chenkov will willingly throw his men at the heavily defended walls of a fortress if it will eventually bring them crashing down.


2. Should the location of an enemy leader be identified, Chenkov is likely to send in more squads to ensure the general cannot escape whilst artillery is tracking into position.


3. Under Chenkov's command, platoons of Guardsmen were ordered to draw enemy fire, to prevent the valued demolitions crews attempting to breach the Emrah battle-fortress from being discovered.

2 and 3 are perfectly intelligent uses of men, which I would expect of even the most caring infantry officer.

1 is callous and wasteful, but also calculated and intelligent. There are some positions that you cannot simply throw men at (ten million men might have been enough to defeat the citadel of Kotrax without armored support or siege weapons, but it obviously wouldn't have been enough to defeat the Vraks citadel, for instance). The implication is that Chenkov can tell the difference between the two, and is rarely wrong. He may be a callous *******, but he's also an intelligent one.

[Melissia]

Which I really dispute-- his supposed intelligence is, like many things in the fluff, nothing more than plot armor. If the writer does not want him to be wrong, he will never be wrong. It doesn't make him intelligent or epic or awesome or badass, it just makes him meh.

[Nabterayl]

That's fair. For me, this is one of those logical contradictions where I just have to throw up my hands and take the universe on its own terms. The contradiction, as I see it, is this:

You cannot win an early modern battle by simply throwing bodies at it. If the enemy has automatic weapons and at least semi-modern artillery, it simply does not matter how many men you have, unless you literally have more men than the enemy has bullets, and even then, it's far from a sure thing.
40K insists that you can win an early modern battle by simply throwing bodies at it, in at least some circumstances.

This is a case where 40K is internally inconsistent, but if I don't ultimately side with the illogical view I end up disregarding huge swaths of the fluff (the entire Mordian Iron Guard and Death Korps of Krieg, for starters). So I simply need to accept premise #2, and not question it too closely. If #2 is a given, then it seems fair to assume that Chenkov is, if not an infallible commander, at least a successful one. Saying, for instance, that he loses more often than he wins, has no support other than #1 above, which I have already been rejected for other reasons. So I conclude that, given the magical Saturday morning cartoon land of 40K where you can win early modern battles in some circumstances by simply throwing bodies at them, and given a commander who wins early modern battles by simply throwing bodies at them, Chenkov must understand whatever it is in MSMCL40K that makes this illogical conclusion tick. As for what it is ... that's kind of a black box to me, as is the entirety of #2 in the first place.

That's how I deal with the head-breakingness of it all.

[Commissar Lewis]

Personally I like the Space-Stalin that is Chenkov. Granted my Guard tactics are to prevent casualties, keeping my loss record high. I'm thinking of adopting Patton-esque tactics.

On topic, though, the Imperium does have manpower in extreme excess. With millions of planets, a lot of those having billions of people, they have no real lack of people.

Resource-waste only gets bad when the resource supply dwindles down.

I dunno, I been drinking a lot of whiskey. This reply may not make sense.

[Nabterayl]

I think what sticks in the craw about the "the Imperium has lots of manpower" argument is that manpower is not the same as soldiery. Experienced soldiers are a valuable asset, especially in an army like the Guard where there is no advanced training except for political officers and special forces (and thus you don't even have a steady supply of inexperienced but well-trained soldiers). Officers like Chenkov are not really ever going to produce experienced soldiers - and so they're always going to be stuck using low-quality recruits (unless you happen to come from a world where the average citizen is already well versed in soldiering, and there are very few of those). One has to wonder if these officers wouldn't find more elegant solutions if their soldiers they had to work with were better.

The only way to get better soldiers is to (i) come from a planet where the average citizen is a good soldier (which is just luck of the draw in a lottery with very long odds), (ii) be a commander of space marines, storm troopers, or sisters of battle (even longer odds, and only one of those organizations is in the Guard anyway), or (iii) keep your soldiers alive long enough for them to learn on the job. It's hard not to feel some contempt for a general who has no interest in improving the capabilities of his army.

Granted, the Imperium is not a society that has an interest in improving the capabilities of much of anything. I get that it's all very grimdark, very 40K. But that doesn't stop the "the Imperium has lots of manpower" argument from being bull****. It just makes it ironically self-aware bull**** (which is also very 40K, I know).

[Melissia]

Right.... which is why, while the average commander views each individual platoon, squad, or even regiment as a resource, they don't view it as a resource they want to just throw away. They want to use those resources to win.

As I said... why buy a lasgun for 1000 thrones... when even a master-crafted lasgun is at a maximum of 750 thrones, thus saving you 250 thrones to spend elsewhere. If this seems random... apply it to a battle. You can win a battle Chenkov's way, sending a million men to their deaths, or you can search for a better way, and though you'll still some send men to their deaths, but more will survive-- and those that survive will be higher quality soldiers for it.

[Old_Paladin]

As I said... why buy a lasgun for 1000 thrones... when even a master-crafted lasgun is at a maximum of 750 thrones, thus saving you 250 thrones to spend elsewhere. If this seems random... apply it to a battle. You can win a battle Chenkov's way, sending a million men to their deaths, or you can search for a better way, and though you'll still some send men to their deaths, but more will survive-- and those that survive will be higher quality soldiers for it.

Mel, what if you introduce the aspect of time into your example.
1000 thrones is a lot; but, what if I can get you that lasgun in the next hour? The master-crafted one is cheaper and really nice, but you know it has to be shipped in from Mars, passing through Terra to be put in the Navigators store-houses, placed through inspection and shipped through the warp all the way out here to the Damicles Gulf; that'll take 5-6 weeks.
If you have time to wait; then waitings fine.
If that underhive house you just insulted is sending ganger thugs to 'teach you a lession in manners' tomorrow, then any price is worth it.

Even if Chenkov ends up killing more troops to end the battle in half the time then another commander would in the whole time. Those matters of months means an argi world producing food again, or a forge world making guns and tanks.
Having food, guns and tanks 8 months earlier can be worth an extra few million dead conscripts. A few months could mean the difference between a planetary revolt and system wide rebellion.

The really odd thing, that troubles me, is that he's a Valhallen; from a death world. I wouldn't have thought they'd have had a large enough population to support the constent depleation of men. He's clearly also commanding other 'off-world' units; but where does he keep getting more 'tundra wolves' from?
The story would work better with a Noble-born hiveworld Commander; at least then, you know when he goes back home and press-gangs a few thouand underhive scum, there's at least a few billion more where that came from.

[Melissia]

Mel, what if you introduce the aspect of time into your example.
1000 thrones is a lot; but, what if I can get you that lasgun in the next hour? The master-crafted one is cheaper and really nice, but you know it has to be shipped in from Mars, passing through Terra to be put in the Navigators store-houses, placed through inspection and shipped through the warp all the way out here to the Damicles Gulf; that'll take 5-6 weeks.

... or you could just get a locally produced lasgun of exceptional quality. Lasguns are easy to find. If you were talking about a power weapon, then yes, that might be the case. But I digress.

I still don't buy that reactionary type of thinking; my armies force my enemies to react to me, not the other way around. There's almost always more intelligent tactics than "aw **** it, just throw more men at 'em"-- and in fact I would argue that throwing wave after wave of men at the enemy wastes both time AND infantry in comparison to an intelligently devised tactic as part of a wisely constructed strategy.

[entendre_entendre]

one thing about Chenkov that's been nagging me since i read the codex is this: Chenkov is a captain/lieutenant equivalent right? so how in the throne's name does he get a million conscripts when other regiments have far fewer spread throughout their entire army?

if he was a lord general or general-like rank, this would make sense as he would have a lot of men under his control, but he's a captain. unless his platoon has two squads of guard and 126,000,000 conscripts in it, but wouldn't a number that large be divided up over several regiments let alone platoons?

also, since when does the Munitorum let one mid/lower level commander lead 10 million soldiers? were all the generals on vacation or something? where's the high command? :confused:

just me wondering aloud. i really hope it's exaggeration for exaggerations sake.

on a side note: Chenkov's rules would make a pretty cool template for a chaos zombie lord with conscripts as zombies :D
"THEY JUST KEEP COMING!!!"

[Valkerie]

I agree with you. The Russians tried this against the Germans all during WW II. They took something like 20 million casualties, and, by the end of the war, were literally running out of men for their armies.
When I reaad Chenkov's fluff, I'm reminded of Field Marshall Douglas Haig, commander in chief of British forces during the Battle of the Somme. During the first 24 hours of the Somme, the British took over 57 thousand casualties, dead wounded and missing. Despite this, Haig kept the battle going for five more months, at an average cost of ten thousand casualties a week. Final toll, 400,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers, for the gain of ten kilometers of terrain. His main idea on tactics was that the British Empire had more manpower than the Germans, and could thus win because they would still have some soldiers left after all the Germans had been killed. Sounds pretty 40 K ish to me. Despite his incompetence, Haig retained his positon by savvy politics, mainly by lying to the government about how the war was going. It's possible that this is how Chenkov keeps his job. Aside from plot armor, of course.

[Nabterayl]

one thing about Chenkov that's been nagging me since i read the codex is this: Chenkov is a captain/lieutenant equivalent right?
No, Chenkov is ... well, it's unclear, but he's at least a colonel equivalent, and more likely (in my opinion) some flavor of general. He's a platoon commander in the codex because of the way that interacts with the rules.

The ten million men thing still strikes me as ... um ... *cough*bull*****cough* but it is feasible that Chenkov could be the ranking Guard officer in a situation that involved many regiments.

[Melissia]

DUnno. He's "commander" chenkov.

[Fellend]

" 1. You cannot win an early modern battle by simply throwing bodies at it. If the enemy has automatic weapons and at least semi-modern artillery, it simply does not matter how many men you have, unless you literally have more men than the enemy has bullets, and even then, it's far from a sure thing.

2. 40K insists that you can win an early modern battle by simply throwing bodies at it, in at least some circumstances."

1: Yes you can. Assuming you have enough men. The formula for how much ammunition you need to spend to kill of a plutoon with artillery is scalling high. just having a crater to take cover in makes it cost 10 times as much ammunition as it would if they were just standing straight up. One could argue that with enough men (and we assume that the Imperium does in fact have enough men) one could simply let the enemy create our defenses by shelling the ground untill it's just one big crater.

2: Do not under estimate the idea of throwing enough men at it. Technically with all the set up, and preparations the German army had for the invasion of normandie, not to mention the their enemies litterally came squatted together in an open topped boat, Yes, throwing bodies at it will work.

3: In the modern army we throw away lives all the time this is literally a discussion between my Officer friend and his Commanding officer
"Firing Missiles"
"1 glancing hit, it stops the APV, it's now turning it's turret towards you"
"Fall back"
"Why?"
"Because it got IRsights, smoke launchers and a grenade machine-gun (not entirely sure on the translation here) we got ... sand to hide behind"
"You cannot fall back, disable it"
"With harsh words?"
"If needed, if you let it pass it'll assault main camp"
"But?"
"No buts, stop it."

And we are speaking of the swedish army who has definitivly not enough soldiers to even stop and army of angry squirrels.
The Imperial army is near enough Infinite, the lasgun is used because it is cheap. Sacrificing a hundred soldiers to stop a tank when a lascannon costs 4 times that amount. assuming it's even able to get at all seems like a cheap price.

Then we have the matter of logistics, if you cut a logistic line, leaving soldiers without ammunition for a day, even worse, a week, the battle might already be over. And now we are talking the 5 km from base camp.
The galaxy is near enough infinite, if the battle can be won before they have a chance to stall it into a seige and possible get reinforcements and or disrupt the supply lines. It seems like a cheap cost.
It's the 41st millenium, life is cheap. Faith is a physical thing, and enough men kill everything.

if you really want to discuss real life army theories and the Imperium, try explaining Tau.

[Old_Paladin]

Do not under estimate the idea of throwing enough men at it. Technically with all the set up, and preparations the German army had for the invasion of normandie, not to mention the their enemies litterally came squatted together in an open topped boat, Yes, throwing bodies at it will work.

Wow... just... wow.
You have no clue how much planning, combined-arms tactics and tactical set up went into the whole thing do you?
You really think that the allies 'threw bodies at it'?

You've left out the fact that the defences had been bombed for weeks, then shelled by the navy. Massive amounts of airborne troops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut off re-supply lines, destroy inland artillery defences, consolidate inland base camps, and block or destroy bridges so the supperior german armoured units could never make it near the landing grounds.
Even on the beaches there was armoured support from amphibious tanks.

That doesn't even include the tactical aspect of deploying General Patton with a Fake armour division to a different launch point in Britian and leaked false battleplans to the Germans; the German army moved significant manpower out of Normandy to Pas De Calais (where they there tricked into thinking the real invasion would occur).

They didn't "just throw bodies at it."

[Melissia]

Also, these weren't just a bunch of guys with rifles. They had engineers, tanks, snipers, medics, and what have you, a professional military force and one of the most complex plans ever devised, rather than a bunch of nobodies drafted in and tossed into battle, which is all that Chenkov does.

[Valkerie]

Wow... just... wow.
You have no clue how much planning, combined-arms tactics and tactical set up went into the whole thing do you?
You really think that the allies 'threw bodies at it'?

You've left out the fact that the defences had been bombed for weeks, then shelled by the navy. Massive amounts of airborne troops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut off re-supply lines, destroy inland artillery defences, consolidate inland base camps, and block or destroy bridges so the supperior german armoured units could never make it near the landing grounds.
Even on the beaches there was armoured support from amphibious tanks.

That doesn't even include the tactical aspect of deploying General Patton with a Fake armour division to a different launch point in Britian and leaked false battleplans to the Germans; the German army moved significant manpower out of Normandy to Pas De Calais (where they there tricked into thinking the real invasion would occur).

They didn't "just throw bodies at it."
I have to agree with you on this one. Overlord was a brilliant operation that took something like a year to plan. They spent an enormous amount of time building up their supplies and manpower, they spent days and weeks practicing and rehearsing the landings. The joke was that England was going to sink from all the men and equipment that were on it. I think that Fellend, like many other people, takes his impressions of D-Day from Saving Private Ryan, and other films that concentrate on Omaha Beach. ' Bloody Omaha' was where the fiercest fighting took place, but to imply that we 'just threw bodies at them', ignores the hard work, training and planning that went into the operation, as well as the skill and courage of the soldiers themselves.
Sorry for the rant. I'm in the military, and I have relatives that landed on Omaha, so I tend to get a little touchy when the subject comes up.

[Absolutionis]

Reading over all this, I notice that people simply tend to value human lives so high that they cannot get over the "waste" of tens of thousands dead.

Haste makes waste, yes. However, Chenkov is "great" because he is decisive, quick, and gets results. Strategy is left to the higher command, Chenkov leads from the front with the knowledge that his tactics will be successful.

---

If your target is a lightly armored enemy jeep and you have nothing but your wits and an assault rifle, you have two choices. You can either unload a magazine into the jeep with the knowledge that you will very likely succeed, or you can carefully take the time to aim with the knowledge that you may miss your target and it would escape.
You would use up a greater amount of resources (bullets) for a higher likelihood of success.
To form an analogy, Chenkov does the same thing; however, instead of bullets he uses guardsmen.

If you have a strong barricade in your way, your options are to unload a few magazines into the barricade or wait for the demolitions or explosives to be set up. You shoot the barricade if time is of the essence, bullets are expendable.
To further the analogy, if Chenkov doesn't have time to deploy a minesweeper, he uses guardsmen. Guardsmen are expendable.

Finally, if you are tasked with protecting the advance of a fellow squad, cover fire is a completely legitimate tactic to draw the enemy's attention to you or at least keep their head down. Cover fire is acceptable because bullets are expendable.
Chenkov uses "cover fire" by marching a platoon as a diversion; guardsmen are expendable.

---

I see some people here are just planners. They want the 'perfect' plan and the 'perfect' resolution to the problem. They want to conserve every life and every bullet. You people are the strategists and the planners.

Hold respect for the people that can make quick decisions. While you're making plans, these people are making actions. Surely such quick decisions are a waste of resources, but you waste time. If I use 1000 bullets or Chenkov uses 1000 guardsmen to get a task done a minute when you take an hour to figure out how to get the task done more "efficiently" with 10, you waste time.
People that make decisions are the commanders and generals. They don't waste time with planning, they get actions done.

To be fair, the "perfect" leader would be a balance of both great planning and quick decisions, and most real leaders are a great balance. However, regardless of if you are on the Chenkov side of the spectrum or the Melissa side of the spectrum, you waste something either way be it resources or time.

Fin.

[Melissia]

Don't be an arrogant *** and claim that we're "just" planners, "just" strategists. Making decisions on the fly is a time-honored tradition for 40K, you have to attempt to force the enemy to react, or if you can't do that, react the best you can do the enemy. Making decisions on the fly is a great skill, something a good commander has-- that does not mean that Chenkov has this skill. He doesn't. He just tosses men into the problem until it's solved. There is no quick decision making there. It's "**** it, I'll throw another platoon of lasguns in and hope it solves itself."

[Sangre]

Chenkov's tactics work when you have the only resource Chenkov had available to him - Lots of men.

[Jackmojo]

Chenkov's tactics work when you have the only resource Chenkov had available to him - Lots of men.

Indeed, Chenkov uses the hammer at hand regardless of what the 'perfect' tool might be.

As to why he is considered successful, the IG lives by Alexander's Maxim:

"Victory needs no explanation, Defeat allows none"

On the general topic of the Imperium expending manpower consider the following:

If we assume the Imperium has a million worlds with an average population of 6.6 billions (US numbering) and a similar birthrate to the Earth in 2007 (when 6.6B was the population roughly), then ~ 134,000,000,000,000 new potential soldiers are born every year (that's more then 254 million a minute). I'd expect given the Imperium's permanent war footing and tithing practices that they keep on the order of 10% of the population under arms if not more.

I'd wager my numbers are low in all cases though (for average population, birthrate, and number of worlds). So a few million soldiers is nothing.

In short, Chenkov is the right man for the job when you have an infantry brigade and ready conscripts (note he uses conscripts for his expenditures, not more expensive troops) and need victory quickly more then you need the men later (which as noted above the Imperium likely can live without).

Jack

[Fellend]

As far as normandie is the greatest planned assault ever. Yes probably, but that doesn't mean that the germans hadn't planned the defenses. They obviously didn't do it well enough. But what I'm saying is that the storming of the beach was basically just throwing so many men at it that they managed to push through.
The airdrops did little to help the actual taking of the beach, they stalled reinforcements surely, but mostly they were there to push on ahead once the beach was taken.

The bombardments didn't do much to the defenses of normandie either, it was built to be bombarded, they stayed low (went to ground in their nice 3+ bunker) and waited. As in most battles back then, throwing enough manpower at a single objective won the day.

Look at Russia during the entire conflict. That was their mainplan and it worked well enough, well our tanks are inferiour but you know what? we have 10 of them for every one you have. Our guns and training are inferiour, but you know what? we have hundreds more for everyone you kill.

[Nabterayl]

I think we need to distinguish between "throwing men at a problem" and "throwing men at a problem." That phrase is being used in three different ways in this thread:
Using enough men to get the job done,
Using men in lieu of the proper tools, and
Adopting a suboptimal plan that consists of advancing with infantry.
#1 describes all battle to some extent. It is no indictment of a commander's skill if he says, "I need X many men to accomplish my objectives." Commanders are supposed to do that.

#2 also describes all battle to some extent, and is also not necessarily an indictment of a commander's skill. If the proper tools are not available, there is nothing shameful about getting the job done with improper tools. Commanders (indeed, all soldiers) are supposed to do that. By way of corollary, neither is there anything shameful about recognizing that doing the job with improper tools is actually the best available plan (e.g., you attack on schedule even though your tanks haven't arrived, and so lose 2,000 men instead of 1,000 - but because you attacked on schedule, another regiment loses only 1,000 men instead of 5,000). One can absolutely imagine situations so dire that the best available plan truly is to march infantry across a minefield to clear the way for tanks.

#3 is the indictment. We should think less of the commander who kills ten thousand of his men in a week because he couldn't be bothered to appreciate that, by attacking a different way, he could have only killed five thousand of his men. We should think less of a commander who uses an infantry battalion to do a tank battalion's job because he was too impatient to wait for the tank battalion to arrive, even though it would have arrived well within the needed time frame.

The question is, does Chenkov mostly do #2, or #3?

Some people, like Melissia, believe that Chenkov does #3 almost exclusively. If that were the case, I would absolutely agree that he was not a very skilled commander. Others, like myself, believe that he shifts between #2 with #3, with an emphasis on #2. That being my interpretation, I think he is a skilled commander, but one too blinkered to become as good as he could be.

[Jwolf]

Look at Russia during the entire conflict. That was their mainplan and it worked well enough, well our tanks are inferiour but you know what? we have 10 of them for every one you have. Our guns and training are inferiour, but you know what? we have hundreds more for everyone you kill.

Some historical correction. Russian tanks, as pieces of equipment, were the best tanks in the world at the beginning of WW2. By a lot. The T-34 was a fantastic piece of machinery, and the design was copied to make the German Panther series. One of the reasons the Russian were sure that the Germans were not being honest with them was how sorry the German tanks were in comparison (as shown to Russian envoys before the beginning of hostilities, in an effort to impress them, ironically enough).

Russian tank crews were the issue, as well as poor command structures. But the tanks themselves were excellent.

Overall Russian equipment was good, except for the low incidence of radios. Training and command structures were the problem.


As to throwing men at a problem, this was the single most important change to warfare brought on by Napoleon. In one of the early conferences in Italy, he told the Allies that they could not stop him, because he spent 10,000 men a month. Napoleon rightly understood that enemies with small armies could not afford attrition losses when he was willing to trade 10 for 1, if he had to. Grant never regretted sending more solidiers into the grinder, except at Cold Harbor. There is a certain degree of willingness to sacrifice soldiers to achieve objectives required in almost all generalship. It's a rare situation where a relatively bloodless victory is acheivable, usually related to vast technology advantages (US current conflicts) and/ or enormous strategic advantages (Swiss Pikemen in the mountains vs. Knights trying to get up a narrow path at them).

[Old_Paladin]

As far as normandie is the greatest planned assault ever. Yes probably, but that doesn't mean that the germans hadn't planned the defenses. They obviously didn't do it well enough. But what I'm saying is that the storming of the beach was basically just throwing so many men at it that they managed to push through.
The airdrops did little to help the actual taking of the beach, they stalled reinforcements surely, but mostly they were there to push on ahead once the beach was taken.

Wow, way to sh!t all over the memory of veterns.
I'm sure the 506th and the 101st Airborne feels that the assault of Brecourt Manor did little to help on the beaches; I mean, they only stopped 4 105mm heavy artillery pieces from firing on the landing grounds. (and is an assault so well pulled off, that it is still taught at West Point).
You might want to take a look at some of the actual landing sites and operation orders; many paratroopers were dropped within one to two miles behind the Beach Fortifications. You cannot tell me those trropers did nothing to help at the beaches. You also don't understand the theory behind airborne assaults; they weren't there to 'push ahead after the beaches were taken.' Since that implies that the beaches would be taken completely without them (also meaning that if the landing failed, the paratroopers were rendered pointless; as there would be no moving forward).
The way you dismiss blocking re-inforcements is also a little stunning. You really think they would have been able to clear the beach-head if Armoured Panzer divisons and grenadiers were there to bulk up the defenses (and bring additional supplies). The Germans didn't "not plan the defense well enough" They had been fed false information and moved almost half their manpower to a different location.

You might have a point about the opperation style of the Soviet Red Army; but you're practically ignorant about d-day.

[Melissia]

Chenkov's tactics work when you have the only resource Chenkov had available to him - Lots of men.

Even if that's your only resource, there's still better ways to use them tahn just throwing them at a target and hoping for the best. 40K does not represent real life tactics and situations at all, and never mistake it for doing so. Despite having so many of them, each soldier has personality, skills, individual attributes and abilities, especially veterans-- and if he wages war in a way that leaves no veterans alive at the end of hte conflict, then that also says a lot about his (in)ability to wage war.

[Sangre]

Even if that's your only resource, there's still better ways to use them tahn just throwing them at a target and hoping for the best. 40K does not represent real life tactics and situations at all, and never mistake it for doing so. Despite having so many of them, each soldier has personality, skills, individual attributes and abilities, especially veterans-- and if he wages war in a way that leaves no veterans alive at the end of hte conflict, then that also says a lot about his (in)ability to wage war.

You have lots of men. They have lasguns. That's it. They have to take down the walls of the fort of the Chaos Lord before he fires his superweapon. The quickest way really is mass infantry attack.

[Jwolf]

Even if that's your only resource, there's still better ways to use them tahn just throwing them at a target and hoping for the best. 40K does not represent real life tactics and situations at all, and never mistake it for doing so. Despite having so many of them, each soldier has personality, skills, individual attributes and abilities, especially veterans-- and if he wages war in a way that leaves no veterans alive at the end of hte conflict, then that also says a lot about his (in)ability to wage war.

Sometimes not thinking is the right answer. Generally victories end with some survivors, so there will be a few veterans. And considering the IG overall, veterans aren't necessarily a good thing - they make the calculations uncertain, as guys that take cover might not be absorbing enough bolter fire at the critical moment to distract from the armor sweeping in from the flank, for instance.

[Lord Azaghul]

So back on topic, since it seems this had been derailed into the typical BOLS argumentative looping with the typical people. Seriously I think some of you argue just to argue!

I actually have a Zap Brannigan model in the works. I’m taking of the old “fat’ Sergeants with the pot-belly and the shot gun and turning him into a Brannigan. His legs will be filed and green stuffed to be ‘bare’. If you’ve seen the model you’ll notice that his ‘coat’ is just the perfect length to be zaps dress.
I’m also taking a Tau head and hands and making a ‘Kiph’. I have actually been planning this for a while, I’m not sure if I want to use counts as Chekov, or just run Zap as a commissar in a unit with Kiph as the sergeant.

[Melissia]

If you think having veterans is a bad idea, then apparently you've never used them in an IG army :P

[McPherson]

One other aspect to Chenkov's 'strategy' is the grand picture.

The guard CAN run a war of attrition griding the enemy over many months / years effectively or it can do a massive zerg rush. And while Melissa may think that the massive Zerg rush is never justified look at the grand picture.

XYZ enemy of the imperium has landed on a vital planet, maybe its a agri-world supplying the food for half a system, maybe its a manufactorioum providing shells for the guards cannons. Whatever it is, spending years driving the enemy out in a long drawn out battle will not only cost the resources spent in the slow war of attrition and skill but every day that planet isn't providing its quotas to the system / segmentum has wide ranging repercussions.

Thus on occasion, costly 'and stupid' zerg rush tactics are needed because sometimes the imperium needs the quick win and the lives of a million men do mean nothing to the lives of tens or hundreds of millions of workers in a hive world relying on this agri world to provide them with the food to survive and produce the weapons and ammunition to equip millions of men.

So (to use your lasgun example) There are times that buying a 1000 throne lasgun work out cheaper than buying the 250 throne lasgun, when the consequences of buying said lasgun spread further, purchasing it may keep the factory open employing staff who pay their tithes to the governor or supporting the local economy thus allowing them to spend more money on other services encouraging the settlement/city/hive to continue to operate without relying on highly expensive imports of money & material from other more profitable areas.

[Nabterayl]

And while Melissa may think that the massive Zerg rush is never justified look at the grand picture.
I don't think Melissia thinks it's never justified. I think she thinks that Chenkov resorts to it even when he doesn't need to. Which is a question of how you interpret his fluff, as I said.

[McPherson]

*shrugs* I saw him as a 'troubleshooter' Sent to situations where that particular strategy is needed. The Guard High command isnt that stupid. If all Chenkov sees is a hammer then it goes to say that Chenkov's boss is going to send him to places that have lots of nails in need of hammering.

[Lerra]

The universe of 40k requires you to suspend disbelief often, and I think this is one of those times. It's a world where you chase after tanks so you can hit them with your fist, where a chainsaw is an advanced high-tech melee weapon, where everything is brought to the highest testosterone-ridden extreme for your amusement. 1 part grimdark, 1 part goofy. Chenkov didn't just sacrifice men to get a job done - no, he sacrificed *10 million* men. As a matter of fact, he just threw bodies at the wall until the wall fell down. That just shows how "badass" he is. If the writers want to make a character more badass then Chenkov, then he will have sacrificed 50 million men, and they'll probably throw in a bit where he ran out of bullets and started shooting skulls at the enemy just to reinforce the point.

[Nabterayl]

The universe of 40k requires you to suspend disbelief often, and I think this is one of those times. As a matter of fact, he just threw bodies at the wall until the wall fell down.
Quoted for truth.


The universe of 40k requires you to suspend disbelief often, and I think this is one of those times. As a matter of fact, he just threw bodies at the wall until the wall fell down.
Quoted twice for retcon bait. I mean, you go ahead and shoot that fortress wall six billion times with a lasgun ... still not gonna make the fortress wall fall down. The only way this works, even in 40K land, is if those ten million guardsmen behaved a lot more intelligently than battering their way through adamantium by shoulder-charging it :p

[McPherson]

Id pay serious points for a character with a "Skull gun" that has a R.O.F. equal to the number of troops you lost last turn. Str 2 AP - is fine, shooting the skulls of my fallen men is awesome.

[Fellend]

Wow, way to sh!t all over the memory of veterns.
I'm sure the 506th and the 101st Airborne feels that the assault of Brecourt Manor did little to help on the beaches; I mean, they only stopped 4 105mm heavy artillery pieces from firing on the landing grounds. (and is an assault so well pulled off, that it is still taught at West Point).
You might want to take a look at some of the actual landing sites and operation orders; many paratroopers were dropped within one to two miles behind the Beach Fortifications. You cannot tell me those trropers did nothing to help at the beaches. You also don't understand the theory behind airborne assaults; they weren't there to 'push ahead after the beaches were taken.' Since that implies that the beaches would be taken completely without them (also meaning that if the landing failed, the paratroopers were rendered pointless; as there would be no moving forward).
The way you dismiss blocking re-inforcements is also a little stunning. You really think they would have been able to clear the beach-head if Armoured Panzer divisons and grenadiers were there to bulk up the defenses (and bring additional supplies). The Germans didn't "not plan the defense well enough" They had been fed false information and moved almost half their manpower to a different location.

You might have a point about the opperation style of the Soviet Red Army; but you're practically ignorant about d-day.

I don't think the airdrop tactic is useless. I'm just simplifying alot. Just as in whatever battle Chenkov sacrificed 10 000 troops. I'm sure there was loads of tactical manouvers, airsupport (spacesupport even) and possible space marine doom out there. The point is that when the battle gets down to it, superior numbers which is after all what the D-day was about. Wins the day
The whole point of spreading misinformation and stalling reinforcements was so the mailed fist could strike at the weak spot overwhelming it with numbers and firepower.

And why I originally brought it up was that someone mentioned that any army with assault rifles and artillery can stop an invasion is just plain wrong. Numbers win the day (often).

And the tanks. Well I base my fact on popular history shows and books. If you have done any real research and/or have real life experience with the machinery you probably know better than me. The only information I have is that the germans had superior tanks (and/or tankexperience) and the T-34 is a good all around tank but it's strongest point is that it's cheap and easy to produce.

[Nabterayl]

And why I originally brought it up was that someone mentioned that any army with assault rifles and artillery can stop an invasion is just plain wrong. Numbers win the day (often).

Ah, I should have been more specific in what I meant. What I meant, more specifically, was that, if you have a stretch of open ground that must be crossed in order to assault a position in which have been sited automatic weapons and semi-modern artillery, the number of bodies required to simply march across that stretch of ground is prohibitively high. This is a very particular definition of "throwing bodies" at the enemy, and, I admit, not necessarily what Chenkov does (although it does seem to be what the Iron Guard does ...).

I am aware that an open stretch of ground defended by machine guns and artillery can successfully be crossed by infantry on foot, but the way to do it is not to line up and run as fast as they can across the open ground, trusting that there are simply too many attackers to kill. Unless there is a truly enormous disparity between the number of attacks and the number of defenders, there aren't. Automatic weapons and semi-modern artillery can kill a ridiculous number of infantry if that infantry is trusting in foot speed rather than utilizing all the lessons we've learned since the Civil War about how to cross open ground under fire.

So I wasn't talking about Normandy. I was talking about, say, somebody trying Pickett's Charge against a Cemetery Ridge held by even the WWI-era machine guns and artillery that the Imperial Guard fields. That doesn't work - except in 40K, where it does.

[Old_Paladin]

I actually have a Zap Brannigan model in the works. I’m taking of the old “fat’ Sergeants with the pot-belly and the shot gun and turning him into a Brannigan. His legs will be filed and green stuffed to be ‘bare’. If you’ve seen the model you’ll notice that his ‘coat’ is just the perfect length to be zaps dress.
I’m also taking a Tau head and hands and making a ‘Kiph’. I have actually been planning this for a while, I’m not sure if I want to use counts as Chekov, or just run Zap as a commissar in a unit with Kiph as the sergeant.

That's hilarious. It works so well.
You should run him as Chenkov; that way everything fits better, having his men die all the time.
Him as a commissar doesn't really work, he's not inspiring and well he makes Kiph's life miserable he's never really tried to kill him (in fact, Kiph should be one of the last models in the army still alive).

Don't forget to add a Pvt. Bender, Pvt. Fry and Pvt. 'Lee Lemon' to your normal platoon squads.
And maybe Nixon's head in a jar can be your Commander, with headless Spiro Agnew as a bodyguard. (Did I watch that show a little too much?).