PDA

View Full Version : Imperial Armor Design Flaws



Helsing
09-08-2009, 17:44
This isnt a complaint forum, just a summary of funny things I've noticed with tanks and how over time you begin to notice how very flawed these models are. For example, the Chimera, with six lasguns nailed to the sides with no view ports, that can only pivet so far and you would think your driver wouldn't be ramming you into a mob of orks no would you?

Then there's the faithful Land Raider. If you notice the Land Raider has doors on the sides too, but most Raiders have those nice big and obstructive lascannons BEHIND the doors so chances are you;

A: Can open the door to begin with (the barrel blocks it)
B: If say you do get out there's every possibility that one of those lascannons will go off.

After that we have the new Valkyrie and Vendetta. Notice how the optional heavy bolters are awkwardly placed so that if you do end up shooting them you are going to be tearing apart your wings plus hitting those big rockets full of promethium strapped to them.

Then there is nearly every Imperial Guard tank ever made. As a rule of thumb a Leman Russ is very tall, for whatever reason, and thus would make a very visible target no matter how many sandbags you pile on it.

If you take a good look at the Chimera (which would probably make a better Russ in real life) and more importantly its variant, the Hellhound, you begin to see the big, exposed fuel tanks loaded on its back. Now there used to be a rule in the 3rd edition Codex that made it seem like a single las round could blow it sky high, a rule I found pretty fun when having it in the middle of my lines.

If you have noticed any other interesting or humorous design flaws in GW tanks feel free to say so.

Lord Merlin
09-08-2009, 18:03
Land Raider intercom log: 963 M41 Malbede
Brother Sergeant Euripides: Our lord Calgar has ordered our deployment!
Tech-Brother Dolon: Brother Locke, clear and lock weapons.
Brother Locke: Aye, Las-cannons clear of side doors and firing disabled, side hatches are clear.
Tech-Brother Dolon: Brother Euripides, our cannons are clear and quiet, disembark when ready.
Brother Sergeant Euripides: Disembarking now, terminators, attack!
Tech-Brother Dolon: Our brothers are clear, prepare to fire.

The Leman Russ is not the best tank in the Imperium. It is just easy to construct, repair, and maintain. Even if its turret does get shot off the Engineseers can just get a new CO, tear out the bolter; shove in a demolisher cannon and you've got a thunderer.

Personally, I've always seen the lasguns on a Chimera being used during crowd control situations. Or for providing close support when moving through dense terrain, where armor is most likely to be attacked by hidden infantry. This idea is ripped off the Soviet BMP-1 whose firing ports were used for that very purpose.

I haven't seen the valkyries in person so I don't know the bolters that you're talking about. Hope it answered some of your questions. And I had a lot of fun doing the intercom log.

Lord_Crull
09-08-2009, 18:06
Imperial tanks where deliberetely made to liik like WWI and WWII tanks and to look cool. they are horrible tank designs by modren strandards.

MajorWesJanson
09-08-2009, 18:06
The Heavy Bolters on the Valkyrie are fine when you realize that most the time they will be firing downwards, at an angle.

w00tm0ng3r
09-08-2009, 18:11
Well if you compare the baneblade to the leman russ, you find that the baneblade weighs more than 5 times as much, is 4.7 times larger, but only has between 10% and 20% more armor in terms of sheer thickness over the vast majority of the tank (the gun mantlet has 80% more thickness but that's an EXTREMELY small area unlikely to be more than 2 square feet total on the front of the turret). This makes it sound like the baneblade is a helluva lot more vunerable than the russ given that it's such a larger target, moves slower, and doesn't really have that much more protection than the russ...

But yes the russ is ridiculously tall. 4.42 meters is enormous! And if you want to go there, it's a rather wide tank too at 4.86 meters. For comparison purposes, the Abrams is 2.44 meters tall and 3.66 meters wide. Even the impractically massive king tiger tank from WW2 was only 3.1 meters tall and 3.76 meters wide... Oh and it's ridiculously slow too with a max speed of 35 kmph... Modern MBTs can easily bust out 60 kmph with some of them going into the 70s. But let's not even touch modern tanks, let's go back to WW2: the king tiger could reach speeds of up to 41 kmph and sustain speeds of 38 kmph... This is the second heaviest combat vehicle ever fielded using an engine designed for a tank slightly over half its weight, and it's faster (and smaller with nearly identical armor thickness) than a leman russ... :wtf: Something's not quite right here.

grissom2006
09-08-2009, 18:18
When it come to the Chimera haven't you consider the minor detail of the weapon it self that extra strut above the barrel could actually be a camera system feeding images back in to crew over the years i've seem plenty of them painted up as lenses.
With the Valkyries you have to remember the weapons not shooting in a horizontal line at the enemy but rather down in a diagonal (I'll also site the nice big American Hercules type gunship the one you get a look at in the transformers movie half it's guns when on the ground are stuck behind the engine blocks)

Guns don't just shoot straight forwards they shot in the direction you point them at use some common sense Helsing please

Condottiere
09-08-2009, 18:23
If they wanted to use the best designs, you'd see variants of the Leopard, the Challenger and the Abrams on the table.

Lord Merlin
09-08-2009, 18:28
The Leman Russ is much more heavily armored than the King Tiger. The Maximum armor thickness is between 150mm and 180mm. My source says 150mm. As tanks usually had the thickest armor in the turret that would mean that the King Tiger's thickest armor is only as thick as the Russ' hull armor. The armor thickness of the Russ, according to Lexicanum is 200 on the turret, meaning that the Russ out armors the Tiger by between 50mm and 20mm. The Russ is exceptionally slow. Then again you can afford to be slow when you can crank these things out as fast as the US was producing M4s during ww2. The increased dimensions can be accounted for by the increased armor thickness. In addition to this fact the Leman Russ mounts a LASER CANNON!, giving it a clear leg up on the King Tiger.

Just my two cents. Again.

Lord_Crull
09-08-2009, 18:45
The Leman Russ is much more heavily armored than the King Tiger. The Maximum armor thickness is between 150mm and 180mm. My source says 150mm. As tanks usually had the thickest armor in the turret that would mean that the King Tiger's thickest armor is only as thick as the Russ' hull armor. The armor thickness of the Russ, according to Lexicanum is 200 on the turret, meaning that the Russ out armors the Tiger by between 50mm and 20mm. The Russ is exceptionally slow. Then again you can afford to be slow when you can crank these things out as fast as the US was producing M4s during ww2. The increased dimensions can be accounted for by the increased armor thickness. In addition to this fact the Leman Russ mounts a LASER CANNON!, giving it a clear leg up on the King Tiger.

Just my two cents. Again.


And the Leman Russ is vast inferior to the Abrams which has 940mm of armor equalvelant. Don't believe me? Look up the forgeworld stats and compare them to the Abrams.

Lord Merlin
09-08-2009, 19:05
And the Leman Russ is vast inferior to the Abrams which has 940mm of armor equalvelant. Don't believe me? Look up the forgeworld stats and compare them to the Abrams.
Of course the Abrams is superior to both of them. The Abrams is more akin to the Hammerhead than the Russ. It uses KE or Kinetic Energy rounds to pierce armor using a dense projectile moving at high speed. It seems to use composite armor to provide an increase in protection and a reduction in weight.

The Russ on the other hand fires high explosive round, and makes use of thick, inert armor to provide survivability.

baphomael
09-08-2009, 19:20
If they wanted to use the best designs, you'd see variants of the Leopard, the Challenger and the Abrams on the table.

Even if you wanted a retro feel there are still better WWII tank designs. The Chimera looks sort-of like a T-34, but without the design aspects that made the t-34 a good tank.

Having said that, the Ragnarok is, pretty much exactly, a KV-2.


Of course the Abrams is superior to both of them. The Abrams is more akin to the Hammerhead than the Russ. It uses KE or Kinetic Energy rounds to pierce armor using a dense projectile moving at high speed. It seems to use composite armor to provide an increase in protection and a reduction in weight.

The Russ on the other hand fires high explosive round, and makes use of thick, inert armor to provide survivability.


Also, it helps that the Hammerhead hase sloped armour, while the Russ is a box on tracks.

Helsing
09-08-2009, 20:15
When it come to the Chimera haven't you consider the minor detail of the weapon it self that extra strut above the barrel could actually be a camera system feeding images back in to crew over the years i've seem plenty of them painted up as lenses.
With the Valkyries you have to remember the weapons not shooting in a horizontal line at the enemy but rather down in a diagonal (I'll also site the nice big American Hercules type gunship the one you get a look at in the transformers movie half it's guns when on the ground are stuck behind the engine blocks)

Guns don't just shoot straight forwards they shot in the direction you point them at use some common sense Helsing please


Just look at the model. It doesn't matter which way you shoot you're still going to hit that big ass hellstrike rocket. Plus, on the Chimera you still wouldn't be able to aim downwards with at least two of the lasguns because of armor obstruction if considering a guy on foot was anywhere near your tank. Plus, if the barrel on a Chimera can do a 360 (or even a 180) it should take care of any infantry sneaking up on it seeing as how those pretty little lasguns still won't be able to cover the back.

And for your information the Hercules gunship's wings don't slope down like the Valkyries', so please use some common sense.:chrome:

grissom2006
09-08-2009, 20:36
Just look at the model. It doesn't matter which way you shoot you're still going to hit that big ass hellstrike rocket. Plus, on the Chimera you still wouldn't be able to aim downwards with at least two of the lasguns because of armor obstruction if considering a guy on foot was anywhere near your tank. Plus, if the barrel on a Chimera can do a 360 (or even a 180) it should take care of any infantry sneaking up on it seeing as how those pretty little lasguns still won't be able to cover the back.

And for your information the Hercules gunship's wings don't slope down like the Valkyries', so please use some common sense.:chrome:

As pointed out by more than one person a gun can fire downwards just because you dont have a moving part on a model kit isn't any basis for you to claim what your saying. Do you appreciate how complex your models would be, add into that with the likes of a rhino theres no way in hell you can fit 10 SM in it. The models are representations of the Vehicle. The Stormlord is meant to be able to carry 40 models and half of those can stand in it's rear and shoot from it you luck if you can fit 6 on the model. Next your going to claim a gun can't be fired up in the air could of sworn they do that in funeral gun salutes.

You miss the point where the gunner points the weapon straight down (i've worked with a lot of guns including ones mounted on aircraft i know how they work and how they get set up on aircraft)

Idaan
09-08-2009, 20:56
Strange that nobody mentioned that Imperial tanks would have great problems with turning around. Their treads touch ground on the whole length, so if they tried to pivot they'd just be trailing dirt and eventually bury themselves.

IhasAshuvel
09-08-2009, 21:02
Unless i'm mistaken, no abrams or challenger tank has ever had to worry about being hit by a plasma weapon or a guy with a huge glove that will open the side of a tank like a tin can.

grissom2006
09-08-2009, 21:08
Unless i'm mistaken, no abrams or challenger tank has ever had to worry about being hit by a plasma weapon or a guy with a huge glove that will open the side of a tank like a tin can.

You know thats so true:p

Having said that that angery Green menace has smashed up more that fair share of tank lol

can't_decide
09-08-2009, 21:15
Pretty much every tank I've seen has tread almost the entire length in contact with the ground. Maybe a couple of feet short of the overall length, but I've not really seen any, aside from half-track vehicles that have more than one thing in contact with the ground.

Lord Merlin
09-08-2009, 21:37
Unless i'm mistaken, no abrams or challenger tank has ever had to worry about being hit by a plasma weapon or a guy with a huge glove that will open the side of a tank like a tin can.

A Terminator trying to take out a tank fitted with reactive armor would not have a good day. Explodes upon impact to defeat shaped charges by setting them off early. Imagine every model attacking a vehicle getting blown up.

grissom2006
09-08-2009, 21:50
A Terminator trying to take out a tank fitted with reactive armor would not have a good day. Explodes upon impact to defeat shaped charges by setting them off early. Imagine every model attacking a vehicle getting blown up.

not a pretty sight i might say the question is how many electrical systems will burn out as well as power fists do damage by weight power and electrical charge as well

Wednesday Friday Addams
09-08-2009, 21:51
Fantasy game.

AndrewGPaul
09-08-2009, 21:56
And the Leman Russ is vast inferior to the Abrams which has 940mm of armor equalvelant. Don't believe me? Look up the forgeworld stats and compare them to the Abrams.

Yeah, but you don't know what the Leman Russ armour is made of. Given that the tank can take impacts enough to knock it sideways a few metres, yet still be undamaged, I'd say the Leman Russ is pretty well armoured.

All this, and somehow no-one's noticed the really obvious flaw - no suspension travel at all. I wouldn't like to drive one of those off-road. :)

Helsing, it's trivially easy to position the Valkyrie's door guns to fire past the wings and stores - I can do it even with the limited traverse available on the miniatures (consider, with the gunners attached, there's no way to pivot the guns vertically).

Lord_Crull
09-08-2009, 22:03
Yeah, but you don't know what the Leman Russ armour is made of. Given that the tank can take impacts enough to knock it sideways a few metres, yet still be undamaged, I'd say the Leman Russ is pretty well armoured.


Actually yes we do, the Land Raider description talks about it being equal to modren steel roughly. If the Land Raider, with 365mm of steel worth armor is more heavily armored than the Russ, then what does that say about the Russ?

And that incedint occered in a BL novel. I myself place Forgeworld more.

Lord Merlin
09-08-2009, 22:07
All this, and somehow no-one's noticed the really obvious flaw - no suspension travel at all. I wouldn't like to drive one of those off-road. :)



It states in Honour Guard that the Russ uses torsion bar suspensions. I'm not sure is this is anywhere else as I'm too busy to look it up in the codex.

baphomael
09-08-2009, 22:26
Yeah, but you don't know what the Leman Russ armour is made of. Given that the tank can take impacts enough to knock it sideways a few metres, yet still be undamaged, I'd say the Leman Russ is pretty well armoured.

All this, and somehow no-one's noticed the really obvious flaw - no suspension travel at all. I wouldn't like to drive one of those off-road. :)

Helsing, it's trivially easy to position the Valkyrie's door guns to fire past the wings and stores - I can do it even with the limited traverse available on the miniatures (consider, with the gunners attached, there's no way to pivot the guns vertically).


Regardless of the material, the design is flawed compared to modern tanks. If they armour is *that* good, then what would it be like if it was sloped?

Problem with Imperial tank designs - its all flat surfaces. Whatever material you build a tank out of sloped armour *is* better than big flat surfaces.

FarseerMatt
09-08-2009, 22:34
Then there's the faithful Land Raider. If you notice the Land Raider has doors on the sides too, but most Raiders have those nice big and obstructive lascannons BEHIND the doors so chances are you;

A: Can open the door to begin with (the barrel blocks it)
B: If say you do get out there's every possibility that one of those lascannons will go off.

I thought the side doors were more like escape hatches in case of critical damage to the vehicle (in which case, obviously, the lascannons wouldn't be firing). Most "combat" debarking will be done through the front ramp. Come to think of it, the assault ramp is a bad design point, as well as the passengers have no cover as they exit. Then again we are talking about power-armoured space marines.

N0-1_H3r3
09-08-2009, 22:34
A Terminator trying to take out a tank fitted with reactive armor would not have a good day. Explodes upon impact to defeat shaped charges by setting them off early. Imagine every model attacking a vehicle getting blown up.
A terminator can withstand heavy artillery bombardment and impact from plasma weaponry... I think reactive armour is the least of their worries.

Idaan
09-08-2009, 23:05
Regardless of the material, the design is flawed compared to modern tanks. If they armour is *that* good, then what would it be like if it was sloped?

Problem with Imperial tank designs - its all flat surfaces. Whatever material you build a tank out of sloped armour *is* better than big flat surfaces.Actually no.
IIRC certain composite armours like Chobham have to be perpendicular to the incoming force for all their elements to work properly.
And sloped armour will have less of an advantage against temperature and energy weapons, which are quite popular in M41.

And a wiki quote to back me up:

Ceramic tiles draw little or no advantage from sloped armour as they lack sufficient toughness to significantly deflect heavy penetrators. Indeed, because a single glancing shot could crack many tiles, the placement of the matrix is chosen so as to optimise the chance of a perpendicular hit, a reversal of the previous desired design feature for conventional armour. Ceramic armour normally even offers better protection for a given areal density when placed perpendicularly than when placed obliquely, because the cracking propagates along the surface normal of the plate.[7] Instead of rounded forms, the turrets of tanks using Chobham armour typically have a slab-sided appearance.

AndrewGPaul
09-08-2009, 23:21
It states in Honour Guard that the Russ uses torsion bar suspensions. I'm not sure is this is anywhere else as I'm too busy to look it up in the codex.

The type of suspension is irrelevant. There's no travel allowed in the tracks, because the hull comes right down to the level of the bottom of the track.

Actually, looking at the Leman Russ, there is a slope to some of the front hull - it's not as noticeable because the lascannon mount takes up half the space. The hull sides are perpendicular, true, but that's also the case on modern tanks. There's not been many I can think of with sloped side armour since the T-34, Panther and King Tiger.

guillimansknight
09-08-2009, 23:28
A terminator can withstand heavy artillery bombardment and impact from plasma weaponry... I think reactive armour is the least of their worries.

Plus couldn't he just shoot up a patch of amour before punching it?

DapperAnarchist
09-08-2009, 23:29
Fantasy game.

Ay-yup....

grissom2006
10-08-2009, 00:06
I thought the side doors were more like escape hatches in case of critical damage to the vehicle (in which case, obviously, the lascannons wouldn't be firing). Most "combat" debarking will be done through the front ramp. Come to think of it, the assault ramp is a bad design point, as well as the passengers have no cover as they exit. Then again we are talking about power-armoured space marines.

You missed out the part where they all have to diuck in order to get out if you consider it to be true to scale model which know they aren't. Also to look at the model no peeking in your IA Books for this as it's more a fun thing than anything but how the hell does the driver and the gunner manage to fit in as well carry 15 other men in tha case of the crusader.

I have to laugh also when i see the Preditor turret the Marine needs to be limber to:p stick his body up through the opening and in full Power Armour minus the backpack

Temmy
10-08-2009, 02:29
The Chimera looks sort-of like a T-34, but without the design aspects that made the t-34 a good tank.

I would say the primary influence would be the Russian BMD and BMP series of IFV's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1

The Leman Russ design seems to be inspired by the French f-17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1

Landraider is the ww1 british tanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Mark_IV_Tadpole_tank.jpg

The baneblade is pretty unique tho. I'm not sure what the main inspiration the warhammer artists used in creating it.

legio mortis
10-08-2009, 03:32
Actually yes we do, the Land Raider description talks about it being equal to modren steel roughly. If the Land Raider, with 365mm of steel worth armor is more heavily armored than the Russ, then what does that say about the Russ?

And that incedint occered in a BL novel. I myself place Forgeworld more.
And pretty much the only evidence for that is that one quote, excluding a couple copy-and-paste jobs. If the armor for one of the Imperium's hardest tanks is truly only equal to 365mm of RHA, then that must mean that the various AT weapons are extremely weak.

But much of the evidence points the other way. In Storm of Iron, a Multi-Melta managed to actually melt a rockcrete bunker into molten rock, and the energy required to do reaches into the hundreds of gigajoules. The same weapon fires at a Leman Russ Demolisher a little later on and fails to destroy the vehicle. In Necropolis, Leman Russ tanks were able to knock a war machine weighing thousands of tons off of an adamantium wall, and at the same time blow large chunks out of it as well. The main weapons of the Leman Russ tanks in Honour Guard have the recoil force equiviant to that of a 16" naval rifle. Even Krak grenades have the ability to entirely incinerate a person.

Now the incident in Honour Guard with the tank getting hit is the only time that we have some hard numbers to work with. We have the entire incident pretty much described. Additionally, vehicles on a Leman Russ chassis get a special rule in Epic. They have a rule called "Reinforced Armor". With this, they get to take their armor save even when getting hit with Macro weapons. They also get to re-roll a failed armor save from a normal one, indicating just how tough the tank really is.

w00tm0ng3r
10-08-2009, 03:34
The Leman Russ is much more heavily armored than the King Tiger. The Maximum armor thickness is between 150mm and 180mm. My source says 150mm. As tanks usually had the thickest armor in the turret that would mean that the King Tiger's thickest armor is only as thick as the Russ' hull armor. The armor thickness of the Russ, according to Lexicanum is 200 on the turret, meaning that the Russ out armors the Tiger by between 50mm and 20mm. The Russ is exceptionally slow. Then again you can afford to be slow when you can crank these things out as fast as the US was producing M4s during ww2. The increased dimensions can be accounted for by the increased armor thickness. In addition to this fact the Leman Russ mounts a LASER CANNON!, giving it a clear leg up on the King Tiger.

Just my two cents. Again.

Yes a tank 38,000 years from now barely beats out a 65 year old tank design and loses hard to a modern tank... I am not quite impressed.


Unless i'm mistaken, no abrams or challenger tank has ever had to worry about being hit by a plasma weapon or a guy with a huge glove that will open the side of a tank like a tin can.

Even better reasons why you shouldn't present said weapons with a huge-ass slow-ass target with rather poor armor.

chaos0xomega
10-08-2009, 03:41
You know, I am extremely critical of the vehicle designs used by the Imperium, hence the thread in my signature (shameless plug), but for some odd reason, I have aboslutely no problem with Space Marine Vehicles and their ridiculousness. Odd I know, considering they share many of the same design flaws, but... I guess the fact that they aren't really modelled off of real-world, modern day troops kinda makes me more accepting of the fact that its fantasy.

Hellebore
10-08-2009, 04:00
Although I've had the argument before and am not interested in starting it again, I don't think the term conventional steel is really a standard unit of measurement (unlike say a metre). Current conventional steels are different to 19th century conventional steels. This is because current steels are almost always alloyed and are rarely iron with a bit of carbon.

It would be quite out of character for an incharacter design spec to be talking to the 21st century reader. That is, the information sheets in IA books listing height and weight etc are written for people within the 41st millennium and not for 'us'. Which means they are referring to what the Imperium calls 'conventional steel', which may or may not be identical to current conventional steels (the steel prototypes they've come out with now are pretty amazing, cold extrudable and memory steels etc).

So, given such materials as adamantium and ceramite, as well as alloys like plasteel, Imperial Conventional Steel could be far stronger than current conventional steels.

And, even if it really is current 21st century conventional steel, I will take opinion over it.

I do not like the idea that necrons, eldar, ad mech etc all use equipment that is inferior to or at best equivalent to modern standards. I want my lascannons as monster weapons, not less powerful than an AT rpg.

So, if the above argument is wrong, I will go with the IA books being in error and 41st millennium tanks being far in advance (materials wise, perhaps not designwise) of current tanks.

I like the idea that STCs can be used to create a steam engine inside an unobtanium hull firing 30cal machine guns with a plasma reactor cannon on the front. Rather than a steam engine powering a steam tank firing pop guns. There is no dichotomy of technology in the latter.

Hellebore

DarkMatter2
10-08-2009, 05:49
40k is not meant to be comparable to modern warfare or modern science. The Leman Russ is built the way it is because it looks cool from a purely aesthetic perspective, while still saying, "primitive and bulky", which is what the Imperium is all about.

Lots of people look at the "specs" on the Leman Russ and say, "The Tank is built poorly, therefore the Imperium is that primitive", whereas I say, "The Leman Russ functions relatively well as a tank in a far future setting, whereas it wouldn't even in the 1990's (the LR is for all intents and purposes an inter-war style tank placing it at least four generations back in terms of tank design, whereas combat data suggests that the difference in performance between one generation of tanks and the next is all but insurmountable) therefore performance of something in 40k is in no way related to characteristics that can be compared to the REAL world."

This observation is one of the reasons that it is hard to take technical, Trekkish geekery of the 40k universe seriously at all - I view that branch as a Misaimed Fandom.

die for metal
10-08-2009, 06:50
Yeah, that's why I assemble my landraiders with the sponsons on the forward mount. Plus, it gives you a few more inches when firing.
The crusader in the templar codex is built like that, so I guess it's legal.

mongoosedog300
10-08-2009, 08:06
Fantasy game.

Quoted for truth.....your talking about tanks that had armour that is made of rediculously strong materials, run by an organisation so increadibly big and advanced I don't think we could begin to fathom it......

Lord Merlin
10-08-2009, 09:30
Yes a tank 38,000 years from now barely beats out a 65 year old tank design and loses hard to a modern tank... I am not quite impressed.

Well seeing as the russ has roughly double the armor thickness on the hull. Again we have to use a bit of imagine on what exactly "Ferrosteel" is. It's obviously at least an iron alloy steel which makes it at least equivalent to what was used during ww2. It could also have any number of other agents to increase the strength, or to reduce weight or fragmentation. I know next to nothing about metallurgy; so I'll leave it at that.


Even better reasons why you shouldn't present said weapons with a huge-ass slow-ass target with rather poor armor.

Well than again any sort of tank, regardless of speed is going to come up dead agains infantry in close terrain. This is why you never see a group of Abrams rolling through a town by themselves. They need infantry support.

genestealer_baldric
10-08-2009, 09:56
people keep talking about tank armour thickness/matireal

at the tank musesm i went to they had a display with the same size of each eras tanks

WW 1 very light due to new tech and not many anti tank threats
WW 2 very thick and heavy and had to use both hands to lift
Modern thinner than WW2 alot lighter can be lifted with 1 finger but alot lot stronger

so its not all around the thickness of armour, but compostition and design behind them, 40K tanks are have far far to many flat surfaces for a real tank design though IMO

Wednesday Friday Addams
10-08-2009, 09:59
Man I remember those Greater Daemons of Khorne and those warhound titans last week.

Condottiere
10-08-2009, 10:37
It's a dichotomy, since we actually have no real frame of reference, just a table of how each fantasy weapons effects has an effect on fantasy armour. Regardless how ridiculous the armoured vehicles look when considering RL tank designs and philosophy, we have to take it as given that the materials they use have to be stronger than what is presently used, since they have had at least thirty thousand years to experiment and improve on it.

IhasAshuvel
10-08-2009, 17:30
It's a dichotomy, since we actually have no real frame of reference, just a table of how each fantasy weapons effects has an effect on fantasy armour. Regardless how ridiculous the armoured vehicles look when considering RL tank designs and philosophy, we have to take it as given that the materials they use have to be stronger than what is presently used, since they have had at least thirty thousand years to experiment and improve on it.

Nuh-uh, if it is badly designed by 2009 standards then it is badly designed for the next 38,000 years.

I mean look at aircraft carriers - such a shoddy design compared to the glorious HMS Victory, the pinnacle of ship design.


I hope your sarcasm detector is fully functional

Condottiere
10-08-2009, 19:04
The Victory was almost the pinnacle for wooden warship designs.

Perhaps the materials used in armoured vehicles are sufficiently strong that sloping them wouldn't make that much difference in protection and be considered inefficient for production.

IhasAshuvel
10-08-2009, 19:06
The Victory was almost the pinnacle for wooden warship designs.


Ergo it should be the pinnacle for steel/titanium/iron ships as well.


Perhaps the materials used in armoured vehicles are sufficiently strong that sloping them wouldn't make that much difference in protection and be considered inefficient for production.

...is what a lot of people who claim that a russ has a terrible design overlook.

FarseerMatt
10-08-2009, 22:00
As has been stated earlier in the thread, modern tank design is moving away from sloping armour (mainly because tank munitions have gotten too good, but top-attack weapons are also a factor). Also consider that sloping is unlikely to do much against the many energy weapons in 40K.

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread162738/pg1

N0-1_H3r3
10-08-2009, 23:36
Well seeing as the russ has roughly double the armor thickness on the hull. Again we have to use a bit of imagine on what exactly "Ferrosteel" is. It's obviously at least an iron alloy steel which makes it at least equivalent to what was used during ww2. It could also have any number of other agents to increase the strength, or to reduce weight or fragmentation. I know next to nothing about metallurgy; so I'll leave it at that.
It's not just alloy composition, it's creation methods as well - the Imperium has access to a range of environments that we can't easily replicate, most importantly zero, low and high gravity conditions, all of which will have an influence on the production of metals.

And that's before you consider other properties - while not of primary importance to modern vehicle armour, heat resistance and conductivity (or lack thereof) are far more crucial to vehicle armour on a battlefield where directed energy weapons are commonplace.

Firaxin
11-08-2009, 01:51
You can't go much beyond the 'conventional steel' conundrum; I believe 40k steel is an alloy containing adamantium, actually.
Reasoning: "Steel" is virtually never mentioned in any 40k/BL source I've ever read, only ferrocrete/etc, thus it must be one of the rarer construction materials, rarer because it's harder to make/more expensive/etc.

Also, on the tank in Honor Guard getting shunted: That's not the only time it happens. Something similar happens at least twice in Parker's Gunheads, which is all about Leman Russ regiments, though I don't recall if specifics on the projectile's mass/velocity were given.

Lord_Crull
11-08-2009, 02:24
It's a dichotomy, since we actually have no real frame of reference, just a table of how each fantasy weapons effects has an effect on fantasy armour. Regardless how ridiculous the armoured vehicles look when considering RL tank designs and philosophy, we have to take it as given that the materials they use have to be stronger than what is presently used, since they have had at least thirty thousand years to experiment and improve on it.

But we do, the Forge world stats have them being equal to 365 mm of steel.


And pretty much the only evidence for that is that one quote, excluding a couple copy-and-paste jobs. If the armor for one of the Imperium's hardest tanks is truly only equal to 365mm of RHA, then that must mean that the various AT weapons are extremely weak.

But much of the evidence points the other way. In Storm of Iron, a Multi-Melta managed to actually melt a rockcrete bunker into molten rock, and the energy required to do reaches into the hundreds of gigajoules. The same weapon fires at a Leman Russ Demolisher a little later on and fails to destroy the vehicle. In Necropolis, Leman Russ tanks were able to knock a war machine weighing thousands of tons off of an adamantium wall, and at the same time blow large chunks out of it as well. The main weapons of the Leman Russ tanks in Honour Guard have the recoil force equiviant to that of a 16" naval rifle. Even Krak grenades have the ability to entirely incinerate a person.

Now the incident in Honour Guard with the tank getting hit is the only time that we have some hard numbers to work with. We have the entire incident pretty much described. Additionally, vehicles on a Leman Russ chassis get a special rule in Epic. They have a rule called "Reinforced Armor". With this, they get to take their armor save even when getting hit with Macro weapons. They also get to re-roll a failed armor save from a normal one, indicating just how tough the tank really is.

Sorry, that's what Gw wrote.Take it up with them.

MajorWesJanson
11-08-2009, 06:31
But we do, the Forge world stats have them being equal to 365 mm of steel.

If you are going to use this argument, pick a steel please. Steel is an alloy. There are many grades based on the composition and the process used to produce it. Steel grades (http://metricmetal.com/standards_comparison.htm)

Conventional steel is a subjective term, especially when steel is rather generic even in a modern context. They put enough stuff in steel that it is possible to choose if it is ferrous or not.

Conventional steel in 40K could easily be a version of Hadfield steel with 12-14% adamantium in place of the manganese.

Lowmans
11-08-2009, 07:10
Seconding MajorWesJanson a little but the assumption is being made that steel = steel.

We don't even know if steel in 40K would be recognisable as something we would call steel at all.

In the dim and distant future steel could be an even more generic term than it is now, composing any alloyed material used in construction or it could be a very specific and singular alloy of which we know nothing and bearing no resemblance to existing steels.

GodofWarTx
11-08-2009, 07:31
Actually yes we do, the Land Raider description talks about it being equal to modren steel roughly. If the Land Raider, with 365mm of steel worth armor is more heavily armored than the Russ, then what does that say about the Russ?

And that incedint occered in a BL novel. I myself place Forgeworld more.


Forgeworld books also list the Chimera front Heavy Bolter ammo at like 300 rounds, and then at the same time list the top turret heavy bolters of a marauder being at like 2000 rounds. It doesnt make sense!

Now, i can see that as being 300 ready and something like 1400 "stowed" ammo, because thats about what a modern bradley fightning vehicle would have ready for its 25mm cannon. 300 rounds wouldnt last a single skirmish against tyranids.


Im suprised no one has mentioned how gigantic the battle cannon is compared to the turret basket of the leman russ.

Condottiere
11-08-2009, 08:30
Automated loading?

Sai-Lauren
11-08-2009, 09:21
Yay, about 5 posts and we get into the normal 40k tanks vs modern tanks arguments. :rolleyes:


This isnt a complaint forum, just a summary of funny things I've noticed with tanks and how over time you begin to notice how very flawed these models are. For example, the Chimera, with six lasguns nailed to the sides with no view ports, that can only pivet so far and you would think your driver wouldn't be ramming you into a mob of orks no would you?

The Chimera's based on the Russian BMP, which has something similar (although it doesn't have it's own guns, the troops use their own.

The BMP is a lot flatter and lower than the Chimera though :)



Then there's the faithful Land Raider. If you notice the Land Raider has doors on the sides too, but most Raiders have those nice big and obstructive lascannons BEHIND the doors so chances are you;

That's one reason why I always stick my Land Raider sponson guns to the front - the other being that the original model had them there as well. ;)

And they are dis/embarkation doors, not emergency escape hatches.



If they wanted to use the best designs, you'd see variants of the Leopard, the Challenger and the Abrams on the table.

No, variants of the Merkava. ;)

The Russ - I think it's shape is actually kind of related to Imperial battle tactics, namely, form up a squadron/ company/ battalion/ division/ regiment line abreast and roll towards the enemy firing.

The slab sides don't matter if nothing can actually get around the sides.:p

The Valkyrie's heavy bolters - if they're designed to be fired downwards, why are they configured so that the most comfortable position for the gunner to hold them has them horizontal, rather than pointed down in the ready position? ;)

And I've done re-entry capable vehicles to death elsewhere. Let's just say that they all look fine just flying through the atmosphere, and someday, I'll do my own Thunderhawk design, which will consider re-entry more than the current design does.

There's plenty of modelling mistakes too - putting things like stores, searchlights and H-K missiles where they'd interfere with turret traverse is only the most common.

x-esiv-4c
11-08-2009, 11:21
while we're at it, lets talk about the wildly insufficient recouperators on the Basilisk! :D

Condottiere
11-08-2009, 11:27
As I recall, the Bradley has sideports to let the infantry squad shoot at anything that's moving, with the M16 variants integrated.

grissom2006
11-08-2009, 11:31
while we're at it, lets talk about the wildly insufficient recouperators on the Basilisk! :D

I always picture the Basilisk as to light for the huge gun when fired and toppling backwards. The model doesn't have detail for the recoil buffering and the center gravity strikes me as way off. But it's got some damm close looking modern day and past tanks that can look just as equally off:p


Long time since i looked at a Bradley but i think your right Conottiere

Steel Legion for Life
11-08-2009, 11:31
Just mentioned this in another thread, but:-

If you want proof that 40k aircraft aren't designed with even a moment of "real world" design thought, take a look at the marauder destroyer. Now look at where the autocannon ejection ports are. Now think if it's safe to pump 40mm brass shell cases into the aircraft's jet engines?

The biggest problem with those slab sides on the russ is the total lack of suspension they afford, which would make them a nightmarish ride. Equally, the Russ had better be reliable, because getting to the track units to repair them would be a nightmare; you'd have to take the whole side of the tank off to replace a wheel or sprocket.

I'd prefer if the Guard list entry for the "Leman Russ" had been changed to "MBT", to allow them to release a new kit, while keeping the current Russ as a viable tank option. "Rogal Dorns" anyone?:)

grissom2006
11-08-2009, 11:42
Hugely difficult to change the wheels and any other part on it i'll agree. But with that in mind some WW2 tanks had wheels set behind two others track guards that would be overly big needing more manpower than needed to maintain it's operational status. Theres a few good shows that deal with tank restorations and some of the major design flaws that crop up have you wonder wwhat the hell the designers we're thinking.

precinctomega
11-08-2009, 12:55
The topic was discussed at almost interminable length on the Black Library forums. There are essentially two points of argument.

1. The "Real Life" Argument. The vehicles for 40k were designed to be as flexible and cost-effective as possible whilst also being clearly identifiable on the tabletop and reflecting the unique design ethos of the race of faction for which they were designed.

2. The "40kverse" Argument. The vehicles of the Imperium (and, to a lesser extent, the Eldar) aren't the result of logical technical R&D. They are relic designs, extracted from the most durable and simplistic templates created for desperate colonists on hostile worlds with minimal resources. They may even have been intended not as the functions for which they are used but as subordinate parts of very different or much larger designs. For example, we know that the original RH1N0 design was intended to be an antigrav tank, not a track-borne one. Similarly, the Leman Russ tank may have originally been, perhaps, one propulsion unit for a much larger tank or family of tanks, the designs of which colonists used to build their first tanks so that the parts and templates could be re-used when resources allowed the construction of larger engines.

However, all the apologia you like will never account for the fact that a commander and a loader and a breach the size that must be necessary for a tank with the bore of a Leman Russ cannot possibly all fit into a turret the size of a Leman Russ!

R.

Gustovic
11-08-2009, 14:00
Folks; we are talkong of 40.000 years in future tanks!!.:wtf:
Haven't you thought about the materials???:wtf:

We don't know by what is composed the metal used in Imperial tanks. And stop comparing Warhammer tanks with the modern ones: it have no sense!!!:wtf:

The LR carries a 360mm Howitzer on the turret and a Lascannon, and I doubt that your Abrahm wouldn't be destroyed by a hit of the Battlecannon.
All Warhammer stuff is up-scaled and you can't comparate its stuff with the modern one.

Sai-Lauren
11-08-2009, 14:07
Just mentioned this in another thread, but:-

If you want proof that 40k aircraft aren't designed with even a moment of "real world" design thought, take a look at the marauder destroyer. Now look at where the autocannon ejection ports are. Now think if it's safe to pump 40mm brass shell cases into the aircraft's jet engines?


Could be caseless ammo and they're just for gas venting... :angel:



Folks; we are talkong of 40.000 years in future tanks!!.
Haven't you thought about the materials???

We don't know by what is composed the metal used in Imperial tanks. And stop comparing Warhammer tanks with the modern ones: it have no sense!!!

Yes, some of us have (one or two of us even have degrees in the subject ;)). There was a discussion a while back as to what Adamantium is for example.

But if, for example, you wanted a steel with 11% Titanium, 4% Nickel, 1% Aluminium and 0.2% Boron, Carbon and Magnesium, Materials Science would be able to tell you the predicted properties of it fairly quickly, without having to go through the expense of actually cooking some of it up (although they'd probably then do so to check their results). Or, more usually in reverse - I want a material with these properties, what do you recommend?

Isotopes don't tend to affect the physical properties of an element (or if they do, not by that much), so the only way to go for unobtanium is via ever increasing atomic numbers, hoping for something from the island of stability at around 120, or through increasingly good processing control, which will only take you so far (in place atomic vapour deposition of all the components to make a suspension bridge anyone? Bring me out of stasis when you're done... )

Adamantium, Ceramite, all the other materials of the 40k universe have to be possible now, the only one that isn't is Wraithbone (which is effectively congealed warp stuff), and the Imperium can't make that. Ceramite for example could be an alumina/something else ceramic, which no-one has yet thought to make because there's no need for it (or it'll cost too much to make), whilst Adamantium could be a metal/ceramic composite.

As for not comparing 40k with current tech, the problem there is that the laws of physics, thermodynamics and so on still apply, (maybe not as we know them now, but still as they apply now) - and if you drop an egg off a 10 storey building, whether it's now or the year 40999, you're still going to get an omlette on the pavement below.

borithan
11-08-2009, 14:28
Even if you wanted a retro feel there are still better WWII tank designs.But then IMperial Design largely seems to be based on pre-WW2 designs. The Land Raider was pretty much a "sci-fied" WW1 tank from the get go (wrap around tracks, multiple limited traverse weapons). The Leman Russ is reputably based on a Char B1 kit, and it certainly has some resemblaces in the design.



The Chimera looks sort-of like a T-34, but without the design aspects that made the t-34 a good tank.The BMP mentioned earlier is actually a better fit, both visually and in purpose.



Having said that, the Ragnarok is, pretty much exactly, a KV-2.Yes, pretty much.

The major flaws of Imperial Tank design: lack of suspension, at least on the older tanks. The land raider, the Leman Russ and chimera seem to have no space for their tracks to ride up... Also, multiple main weapons. The only reason that tanks ever had them was because putting main weapons which had full traverse was initially not possible. The multiple main weapon idea was pretty much discredit by ww2, by which time I think all countries had abandoned the land battleship principle. It is only because the earlier GW tanks were based on interwar design principles that they have multiple main weapons. GW has been moving away from this principle themselves more recently. 1) with the massive limits on how many weapons you can fire on the move and 2) with the design of the vehicles. Those "tanks" designed after 2nd ed have been single main weapon vehicles (the Hammerhead being the main one I can think of at the moment).


If they armour is *that* good, then what would it be like if it was sloped?Not all armour is improved by sloping. Conventional steel armour is, but many modern ceramic based ones, for example, aren't necessarily.


And sloped armour will have less of an advantage against temperature and energy weapons, which are quite popular in M41.Not sure about that. It would increase (true, not bu a huge amount, but it would) the surface area which the energy weapon would be working against, and the amount of armour it would have to penetrate would be thicker. It really depends on how they operate.


although it doesn't have it's own guns, the troops use their own.Erm... the BMP 1 had a 73mm gun. The 2 had a... 30mm cannon?


The LR carries a 360mm HowitzerErm... no, it has a 120mm gun. See forge world for those stats. True, it used to be "Big gun that goes BOOM!". Then they gave actualy figures for it... which is a 120mm. It doesn't fit the scale, but then almost none of the weapons do.

x-esiv-4c
11-08-2009, 14:30
Back on the Basilisk, why doesn't it have a muzzle break?

grissom2006
11-08-2009, 15:08
Back on the Basilisk, why doesn't it have a muzzle break?

Nobody thought to give it one on the model looks so much better if you add one though :D

x-esiv-4c
11-08-2009, 16:12
totally agreed Grissom!

Condottiere
11-08-2009, 16:13
Adamantium could be a combination of bucky balls and carbon nanotubes, and voila, super plastics.

Iuris
11-08-2009, 20:50
Please, all, try to accept that the fluff itself is contradictory. It's not design, it's not super materials - it's just the fluff not caring about the realism at all.

Simple fact: even a solid superadamantium tank does not explain 40k satisfactorily.

Why not? Because it's not on a superadamantium planet. Because it isn't crewed by a superadamantium crew.


-if the armor is so much better than what we have today, why is it possible to harm using chemical propellants? Armies are researching railgun specifically because propellant expansion speed is limited! You can stuff a ton of gunpowder into a gun barrel, but it will only accelerate the bullet up to the speed that the exploding gunpowder's molecules can reach - something chemistry determines.

-if the weapons are so powerful, why is there still infantry around? If a multimelta can melt a bunker, why not just unfocus it and scorch the entire valley of all humans? (like those that the guard is made up of). They're human, and even superflak armor leaves their cool faces free.

-if Titans are so big and heavy, why don't they sink into the ground due to simple ground pressure?

-if Titans are so impervious to harm, why don't they destroy all the terrain around them? Why is a titan battlefield not a flat glass surface?

-if they can create a magnetic field strong enough to contain plasma in a plasma flask - really strong currents - why don't they use THEM as a weapon?


ETC ETC ETC

That's why I long ago gave up - I decided to adjust the numbers and special effects to about a step above today's performance. It works - guardsmen are still guardsmen, tanks are still tanks - they're just a bit better in rare tech and worse in design.

grissom2006
11-08-2009, 23:47
if they can create a magnetic field strong enough to contain plasma in a plasma flask - really strong currents - why don't they use THEM as a weapon?


They did it was called a Plasma Grenade long since gone though

Condottiere
12-08-2009, 05:55
In other settings, the use of "super" weapons on the battlefield tends to be limited due to the threat of intervention by an "interstellar" authority, which seems implausible here, as the Imperium seems to have no scruples about escalation.

IhasAshuvel
12-08-2009, 07:07
In other settings, the use of "super" weapons on the battlefield tends to be limited due to the threat of intervention by an "interstellar" authority, which seems implausible here, as the Imperium seems to have no scruples about escalation.

Yeah, it isn't like the Asguard or Vulcans are going to swoop down and give the IoM a good telling off for using weapons of mass destruction for lols.

"Why yes, I have attached a massive lawnmower blade to my tank, now if you excuse me those tau children aren't going to get run over by themselves".

Hellebore
12-08-2009, 07:31
Well that's because only humans get human rights. Aliens are not only animals, they're evil degenerate animals. Their very existence is reason enough to slaughter their children and torture their mothers.

Ethics as ever, are subjective.

Hellebore

Sai-Lauren
12-08-2009, 08:56
Please, all, try to accept that the fluff itself is contradictory. It's not design, it's not super materials - it's just the fluff not caring about the realism at all.

More like the designers not knowing IMO rather than the fluff not caring, but the point is well made.

As I've said before, the only people in GW with any kind of scientific or engineering qualifications are going to be on the factory floor working the metal figure moulds, not sat in the design studio or writing fluff. And to my knowledge, there's no one in the design studio who's been in the military at all, and no amount of visits to Bovington, reading Osprey books or watching Saving Private Ryan is going to be able to help (and, yes, I'll say that about nearly all of us as well ;)).

Although a possible exception could be made for the Perry twins, as they're historical recreationists.

Gustovic
12-08-2009, 10:53
Erm... no, it has a 120mm gun. See forge world for those stats. True, it used to be "Big gun that goes BOOM!". Then they gave actualy figures for it... which is a 120mm. It doesn't fit the scale, but then almost none of the weapons do.

Well, in all GW LR models the Battle Cannon it have a caliber of 6mm. Multiply it per 6 (Wh40k scale), and... ohhhhh 360 mm:eek::eek::eek:. I don't care if GW did it wrong the scale, but untill they don't change the model; the LR is armed with a 360mm howitzer.

Condottiere
12-08-2009, 12:17
That's almost 15", a calibre rarely seen outside of some railcars, capitol ships and shore emplacements. Forget about the shell and the propellant, how do they get the almost one ton projectile into the barrel and what about the resulting blast area after it leaves the muzzle?

Methinks that tank may become airborne.

IhasAshuvel
12-08-2009, 12:24
That's almost 15", a calibre rarely seen outside of some railcars, capitol ships and shore emplacements. Forget about the shell and the propellant, how do they get the almost one ton projectile into the barrel and what about the resulting blast area after it leaves the muzzle?


Who says the shell has to be a ton? All the construction materal needs is a semi decent strength and to be rather light.

Condottiere
12-08-2009, 12:34
So how much do you suppose an approximate 15" shell should weigh?

IhasAshuvel
12-08-2009, 12:37
So how much do you suppose an approximate 15" shell should weigh?

I never said it would be so light one person could carry loads of them, but it certainly need not weigh a ton.

aka_mythos
12-08-2009, 12:42
Maybe despite the barrels size, the projectile is smaller, such as a sabot round.

Most of the issues are related to scaling. I wanted to add that GW's vehicles are just as off scaled as the infantry models. They are caricatures. A guardsmen in "real life" would end up being almost twice as wide as a normal man. The vehicles are much the same way.

Condottiere
12-08-2009, 12:42
It's not just the weight, which require additional equipment just to place it in the breech, shell and the propellant need place as well.

Raellos
12-08-2009, 12:43
The only thing I can't really put up with is the lack of track travel allowed.

grissom2006
12-08-2009, 15:16
Maybe despite the barrels size, the projectile is smaller, such as a sabot round.

Most of the issues are related to scaling. I wanted to add that GW's vehicles are just as off scaled as the infantry models. They are caricatures. A guardsmen in "real life" would end up being almost twice as wide as a normal man. The vehicles are much the same way.

We know this although some people fail to see it, like thinking a the Heavy Bolters on Vallyries can't shoot down and can only hit the wings or weapons pod.