PDA

View Full Version : Tank Total war!



sebold
03-08-2010, 07:29
hey guys, ive noticed that the imperial guard have some cool AFV but it seems to me that their lacking some modern designs and upgrades like sloped armour and explosive reactive armour,probably lost the modern tank STC :p and now the IG have ended up using WW1 and pre WW2 tanks,

so let me ask you this. if it came to total tank only war, who would win? our modern tanks(LEopard 2,challenger,M1 abrms)) or IG tanks? (leman russ,variants,ect!)

TANK ONLY WAR!:chrome::evilgrin::chrome::evilgrin:

EDIT! and i mean an equal number of tanks on each side! not sheer total numbers, equal forces,
and no, you cant all haave Baneblades
!

Devastator
03-08-2010, 07:31
ig by sheer mass

AndrewGPaul
03-08-2010, 07:46
Woohoo! This thread again.

From what I've read, the numbers scattered through the background material give performance figures for Imperial tanks which are superior to modern vehicles. Don't think just because they look like WW1 tanks they perform like them. :)

As for armour design, I've heard suggestions that modern armour design works better against perpendicular hits, but I'm no expert. In addition, real-world tanks only really have to defend against physical penetrating warheads; tanks in 40K have to be designed to resist physical penetrators, lasers, plasma weapons, meltas and the deformation caused by power fists. That's before you even consider Necron gauss beams and Tyranid corrosive weaponry. They're fairly new, so Imperial (and other factions, to a lesser extent) vehicles are only protected against them by accident, really.

Malice313
03-08-2010, 07:59
The holy pattern of the Leman Russ would win because there is several billion of them made to every modern tank at the tiniest faction of the cost and time and crewed by soldiers who only need to have a few days of training as opposed to months.

The objective of total war is not to destroy as many enemy troops as possible (though that never hurts). Its to cripple the ability to recruit, train, arm and maintain enemy soldiers.

A modern tank simply would not be able to engage enough Leman Russ to stop them destroying the massive logistics required to support it.

Once broken down and out of fuel and ammo the modern tanks will be an abandoned hulk of superior technology sitting amongst the dozens of burnt out Russ hulls that it just couldn't kill enough of.


Woohoo! This thread again.

Yeah... I needed to reset my clock, and thankfully this thread returned right on schedule!:D

Gue'Vesa'Vre Kilo
03-08-2010, 08:33
I believe by 'total' he means a war that consist of only tanks, instead of meaning 'total war'.

others have already explained how Imperial tanks are better than modern ones.

Hunger
03-08-2010, 09:42
I believe by 'total' he means a war that consist of only tanks, instead of meaning 'total war'.

others have already explained how Imperial tanks are better than modern ones.

I was also confused by the OP's use of the phrase 'total war' - its not what he meant.

Finnith
03-08-2010, 09:49
A Leman Russ costs less to make than the shell used to kill them from a modern battle tank, it can be powered by its crews biological waste and can be driven by an 8 year old. Thats how you win with guard.

TheOverlord
03-08-2010, 09:53
I believe as a german panzer(tiger?) commander once said to his Russian captor, "Our tanks can equal 10 of your Russian ones, but you always bring 11."

Green-is-best
03-08-2010, 10:19
Comparing the total output of the Imperium to our little blue planet and saying they'd win with numbers is a little asinine. Of course they'd win if there were 100 million Leman Russes vs 10,000 modern MBTs.

The question is which tank would be superior given reasonably similar numbers.

I'd say our tanks, since they're faster, better armored, have better targeting systems, can shoot in the dark with out a searchlight (lol) and arguably have a beefier gun.

Whoever wrote the profiles for Imperial Armor either purposely made them weak or just didn't know what they were doing, cause most Imperial vehicles are awful.

TheOverlord
03-08-2010, 15:54
Bring on the Baneblades, I say!

Lord-Gen Bale Chambers
03-08-2010, 23:16
I am of the school of thought that Imperial tanks are tougher then modern tanks.

My reasoning is that all because Imperial tanks are made of "fantasy" metals, they are tougher. Plasteel and Adamantium composites or something like that.

I wouldn't give a modern tank an armour rating higher then 12 because of that.

There is also a very old WD that compared the autocannon to the main cannon on modern battle tanks. Modern tanks would be fast vehicles and have a 4(5) BS.

Iracundus
03-08-2010, 23:31
From what I've read, the numbers scattered through the background material give performance figures for Imperial tanks which are superior to modern vehicles. Don't think just because they look like WW1 tanks they perform like them. :)


You might have read the wrong numbers then because the performance characteristics from FW for example show inferior performance. The speeds of the Leman Russ are far slower than a modern tank for example. One for one in actual combat, modern tanks can outrun and outmaneuver Imperial tanks easily.

The Imperium focuses on numbers and ease of maintenance, rather than outright sheer performance. The Leman Russ may be inferior but the Imperium can field many more of them, and they can keep running probably longer than modern tanks due to the overall ruggedness and the ability to run off of unrefined fuels.

Just because the Imperium is from the future doesn't mean everything is more advanced or better than modern day stuff. Remember this is an Imperium where whole worlds have fallen back into the stone age, and humanity has gone through a dark age of lost technology and regression.

Bunnahabhain
03-08-2010, 23:35
Assuming roughly comparable numbers of vehicles ( ie no more than 10-1), and reducing GW ridiculous-ness and handwavium elements to something half way sensible....

Real world ones, by a huge margin. They have better guns, better trained crew, better armour, better mobility, and are easier to hide.

Also, I wouldn't even be relying on Challenger 2, Leopard 2 etc. Do you know how many older tanks there are about, kept in running order, with trained reservists, by assorted paranoid countries? The Israelis have a large number of Chieftains, with their really excellent 105mm guns (and updated secondary systems), and the Russians have a silly number of mothballed T55s- Not as good, but still far better than Imperial designs, and there are lots of them.

Arkondak
04-08-2010, 00:02
I would say that the Leman Russ would slower than a modern MBT but the armor would be similar if not better than armor on a modern tank. The main gun on a Russ lacks the penetration of a modern tank's main gun, which I argue would roughly be the equivalent of a vanquisher cannon.

In my opinion, in a one on one fight a Russ might very well lose against a modern MBT but i think that is mostly because the Russ was not designed to kill tanks.

My in universe explanation based off my impression the model and my limited knowledge of the fluff:

Like most imperial tanks, The Russ is based off a pre-imperial STC. It has a main gun that fires a high explosive shell that deals wide area effect damage, and mounts up to 4 secondary weapons, the majority of which are designed for anti infantry work. The russ has a high profile, making it difficult to climb. This screams anti infantry tank to me. The original designers of the russ (they called it something else back then i suppose cause russ hadn't been born yet) designed a cheap, easy to build, heavily armored anti infantry tank to help fledgling colonies fight back the most numerous, and not coincidentally most infantry based, threat in the galaxy, Orks. It has become the main battle tank of the Imperium simply because the STC was available and it is cheap and easy to build and requires a very short supply train.

A Destroyer tank hunter or a Vanquisher would fare much better against a modern tank one on one, and a Shadowsword would win every time.

The model for the Leman Russ has a massive targeter/gunsight attached to the side of the turret, so i'm not really sure why GW insists on the Russ having inferior optics; but they do.

Iracundus
04-08-2010, 00:05
A Destroyer tank hunter or a Vanquisher would fare much better against a modern tank one on one, and a Shadowsword would win every time.


I would question the performance of the Shadowsword. It may be durable due to its size but its speed is even lower, and its gun as described in FW has a slow recharge cycle requiring it to be charged from the engines (effectively rendering it immobile until charged). As a static gun emplacement it may do well, but in any kind of mobile engagement, it would be outmaneuvered and shots likely put into its weaker armor faces. Even if its gun can accomplish 1 hit kills against modern tanks, its slow rate of fire and fixed forward gun mounting may mean it doesn't perform very well against fast moving modern armor.

sycopat
04-08-2010, 00:19
Is it possible to dismiss the hand waving that overstates things without also dismissing GW's writers tendency to hideously underwrite other things?

Clockwork-Knight
04-08-2010, 00:33
No, because Games Workshop, Forgeworld and Black Library can never do wrong, and what they write is equally true, even if conflicting and complete non-sense. Only a retcon is valable, but nobody ever admits or says what's been changed for good.

That's their lame-ass excuse for their horrendous editing, and they will stick with it till the sun explodes.

Arkondak
04-08-2010, 00:44
I would question the performance of the Shadowsword. It may be durable due to its size but its speed is even lower, and its gun as described in FW has a slow recharge cycle requiring it to be charged from the engines (effectively rendering it immobile until charged). As a static gun emplacement it may do well, but in any kind of mobile engagement, it would be outmaneuvered and shots likely put into its weaker armor faces. Even if its gun can accomplish 1 hit kills against modern tanks, its slow rate of fire and fixed forward gun mounting may mean it doesn't perform very well against fast moving modern armor.

True in dense terrain, but a shadowsword's turning radius is certainly good enough to track a moving tank 10 kilometers away, and when your one hit kill occurs the moment your enemy appears as a speck over the horizon, and all you leave behind when you achieve that kill is a pair of smoking treads and a slowly cooling puddle of metal and glass that used to be the other guys tank and the sand dune he just crested; all that maneuvering becomes a tad irrelevant. If a superheavy with titan killer weaponry sees a tank, that tank is dead.

Deploying a shadowsword in terrain that allows it to be flanked by tanks is as foolish as deploying a tank in terrain that allows it to be flanked by infantry.

Green-is-best
04-08-2010, 00:46
My guess is that GW doesn't intentionally underpower things, they simply don't have a solid understanding of the statistics and performance profiles of modern vehicles and weapons.

Iracundus
04-08-2010, 00:51
True in dense terrain, but a shadowsword's turning radius is certainly good enough to track a moving tank 10 kilometers away, and when your one hit kill occurs the moment your enemy appears as a speck over the horizon, and all you leave behind when you achieve that kill is a pair of smoking treads and a slowly cooling puddle of metal and glass that used to be the other guys tank and the sand dune he just crested; all that maneuvering becomes a tad irrelevant. If a superheavy with titan killer weaponry sees a tank, that tank is dead.

Deploying a shadowsword in terrain that allows it to be flanked by tanks is as foolish as deploying a tank in terrain that allows it to be flanked by infantry.

The Shadowsword's accuracy is debateable depending on how reflective one views the BS characteristic is. A slow rate of fire doesn't help. It is no good destroying 1 enemy tank if it then cannot fire at the others before they close. As per FW Imperial Armor, the Shadowsword actually has to charge its gun off the engines and is immobile during this time.

The Shadowsword is also listed with an on-road speed of 25 km/h and off-road of 18 km/h. With that kind of incredibly low speed, its operational mobility is going to be very limited, hence why I would see it having difficulty actually doing anything other than acting as fixed gun emplacements or attacking fixed fortifications.

MrSatan
04-08-2010, 00:53
it can be powered by its crews biological waste

Say what now??

Arkondak
04-08-2010, 02:21
The Shadowsword's accuracy is debateable depending on how reflective one views the BS characteristic is. A slow rate of fire doesn't help. It is no good destroying 1 enemy tank if it then cannot fire at the others before they close. As per FW Imperial Armor, the Shadowsword actually has to charge its gun off the engines and is immobile during this time.

The Shadowsword is also listed with an on-road speed of 25 km/h and off-road of 18 km/h. With that kind of incredibly low speed, its operational mobility is going to be very limited, hence why I would see it having difficulty actually doing anything other than acting as fixed gun emplacements or attacking fixed fortifications.

The shadowsword with targeters is BS 3(4) and my view of BS 4 is extremely favorable given that it is reserved for the likes of Stormtroopers, Space Marines and Dire Avengers

I was under the impression that this thread was about tanks fighting one on one or in equal numbers.

Against numerous tanks, i would agree, the slow rate of fire would be a disadvantage, against a single tank, matched up one on one, it would be less of a factor. provided of course that the gunner can achieve a hit; which shouldn't be too hard even at range, given that BS 4 is the highest skill available to non hero characters and that even a near miss from the weapon automatically penetrates any armor in the game. Plus the range of it's weapon is nearly twice that of a battlecannon or railgun and half again as much as a vanquisher, i don't know precisely how modern tank guns stack up in that list, but the shadowsword is almost certainly going to get at least a second shot before they get within range.

The Shadowsword is not an assault tank, it is an ambush killer designed to be used defensively take out other superheavies and titans. Speed is less of a factor in this role. it would excel at blunting enemy armored assaults across open ground by killing titans and gargants and the like. Using one against tanks would be viable, if a bit inefficient, once the real targets ran out. Killing bunkers and fixed fortifications would be nice too though.

Green-is-best
04-08-2010, 03:13
The effective range for the M256 is 3.5km for a KE penetrator, 1.8km for other munitions, and about 8km for indirect fire.

But the big thing is that a M1A2 can fire accurately and quickly while moving, something that no Imperial armored vehicle can do, since they lack the necessary fire controls.

808thMyrmidons
04-08-2010, 09:22
only one word need be said here.
baneblade

Green-is-best
04-08-2010, 09:38
Baneblades are too slow.

Hellebore
04-08-2010, 09:45
The effective range for the M256 is 3.5km for a KE penetrator, 1.8km for other munitions, and about 8km for indirect fire.

But the big thing is that a M1A2 can fire accurately and quickly while moving, something that no Imperial armored vehicle can do, since they lack the necessary fire controls.

Is that based on game mechanics or actual background? In 2nd ed leman russes were beastly fast. Background didn't change, but the rules did.

It also applies to the arguably more advanced Eldar and Necrons, because of the universal nature of vehicle rules.

As for the IA stats, well I've had the discussion of what 'conventional steel' means in the past. Speaking of which, looking through all the IA books I can't find the terms conventional steel in any of the vehicle data panels. They just give thickness in mm.

Where did it say conventional steel again?

Hellebore

Green-is-best
04-08-2010, 10:04
I dunno where it says its conventional steel, but I don't think anybody has tried to say that their armor is just plain old steel.

The speed figures come from IA, however, so Russes may have been retconned to be slower.

Hellebore
04-08-2010, 10:22
No Iracundus' argument is that because the IA information states that their armour is the equivalent of Xmm steel (and those mm are quite crap compared to modern tanks) that means 40k vehicles are worse than modern ones.

My problem with that is that 'conventional steel' isn't an absolute value and those IA info panels certainly aren't talking to a 21st century reader when writing these things.

Hellebore

Green-is-best
04-08-2010, 10:46
No Iracundus' argument is that because the IA information states that their armour is the equivalent of Xmm steel (and those mm are quite crap compared to modern tanks) that means 40k vehicles are worse than modern ones.

My problem with that is that 'conventional steel' isn't an absolute value and those IA info panels certainly aren't talking to a 21st century reader when writing these things.

Hellebore

Well, maybe I'm just being daft, but I don't see that particular argument in this thread, though I could totally see it coming up. It certainly has in many other similar threads.

MajorWesJanson
04-08-2010, 10:56
The effective range for the M256 is 3.5km for a KE penetrator, 1.8km for other munitions, and about 8km for indirect fire.

But the big thing is that a M1A2 can fire accurately and quickly while moving, something that no Imperial armored vehicle can do, since they lack the necessary fire controls.

Unless you look at Honour Guard, Gunheads, or even the newest guard codex which allows the Russ to move and shoot without any penalties to accuracy.

As for the other way around, Chobham armor is not going to help much against a Destroyer tank hunter, or probably even a normal lascannon.

Green-is-best
04-08-2010, 10:57
Also, the "conventional steel" thing actually is a uniform rating rubric used to describe the protective characteristics of tank armor. The M1A2, for example, offers protection against high explosive anti-tank rounds equivalent to about 1400 mm of rolled homogenous armor (which is a type of steel.)

So, if the Forgeworld profiles are describing the protective capabilities of Imperial armor in terms of RHA equivalency, then Imperial tanks offer protection slightly better than a Tiger II. On the other hand, if they're simply describing the actual thickness of the armor, then we simply don't have enough information to make a judgement.

Green-is-best
04-08-2010, 11:02
Unless you look at Honour Guard, Gunheads, or even the newest guard codex which allows the Russ to move and shoot without any penalties to accuracy.

True, but they're moving at combat speed, which is pretty damn slow in a Russ. A M1A2 can fire accurately at speeds faster than the Russ can even reach.


As for the other way around, Chobham armor is not going to help much against a Destroyer tank hunter, or probably even a normal lascannon.

I think thats debatable. Chobham offers pretty amazing protection against shaped charges, so that would probably translate to a degree of protection against laser weaponry.

808thMyrmidons
04-08-2010, 11:21
i wasnt talking about speed. i'm talking about gunpower and armour. besides i was under the impression that IG tanks had adamantium or plasteel armour. which if i know my fluff is stronger than steel.

Bunnahabhain
04-08-2010, 11:30
There is actually a real world tank series that provides a fairly good analogue of imperial tanks, in terms of speed, armour and weapons.

The IS-2, and the SPG derivatives. ( ISU 122 and 152)

They are quite slow, don't make much use of angled armour, have large guns with slow reload times, aweful internal layouts, and fairly crude/ non existant optics, gun stablisataion gear, comms equipment.

But that armour was thick, the guns were powerful, the chassis fairly reliable (once a few kinks were worked out) and they were mass produced.

They were OK at tank on tank comabt, but always suffered as the German gunners could hit them effectively from further off, and fire faster, more accurately. Thick armour and numbers made up for this to some extent.

However, as infantry support tanks, they were excellent. You want to clear a building? You stick a few rounds of 152 mm HE into the ground floor, ( as direct fire from within small arms range, with a platoon around the tank keeping panzerfausts etc away, and directing fire) and collapse the whole thing. Building Clear.

That is why Imperial armour loses vs real world armour. Imperial Armour generally isn't designed to take on armour.

MajorWesJanson
04-08-2010, 11:33
I think thats debatable. Chobham offers pretty amazing protection against shaped charges, so that would probably translate to a degree of protection against laser weaponry.

Maybe if Boeing trys shooting an Abrahms with their Airborne laser, we can find out :D

Bunnahabhain
04-08-2010, 11:46
Maybe if Boeing trys shooting an Abrahms with their Airborne laser, we can find out :D

Have a poke round wikileaks. It won't be that long before the laser gets deployed, and the USAF are very good at freindly fire incidents....

legio mortis
05-08-2010, 05:56
But the big thing is that a M1A2 can fire accurately and quickly while moving, something that no Imperial armored vehicle can do, since they lack the necessary fire controls.
No, they can, and do. Even the Epic: Armageddon description for the Leman Russ states that it has no problem firing quickly and accurately while on the move. In Honour Guard the Urdeshi tanks were compared quite unfavorably to the Russ, and were noted to have to fight without targeting computers, sensors and other electronic equipment.

A problem with the viewpoint that advocates the Russ having only slightly better armor than a Tiger II is that it is only supported in that one quote. Is there any other quantifiable evidence shown throughout the books or rule material? In Epic: Armageddon the Russ is one of the only vehicles, alongside the Land Raider, to get the Reinforced Armour special rule, where they can reroll failed armor saves or even take an armor save from Macro weapons.

Iracundus
05-08-2010, 06:27
A problem with the viewpoint that advocates the Russ having only slightly better armor than a Tiger II is that it is only supported in that one quote. Is there any other quantifiable evidence shown throughout the books or rule material?

Yes, before the clearly quantified inferior protection of Imperial armor documented in all of the Forgeworld publications, there was the same documented inferior performance in Chapter Approved.

Page 78 of the 1st Chapter Approved compilation lists the Land Raider has having 91-95mm of a composite armor equivalent to 365mm of conventional steel armor. The ability to have an armor equivalent to 4x its thickness in steel is impressive but the overall protection is not. Equally unimpressive is the slow on and off road speeds, listed in km/h, of Imperial vehicles, which again are consistent from Chapter Approved and Forgeworld publications.

For those trying to argue that where it states steel it doesn't really mean steel, are we then to also assume that a km is not a km, a meter of height is not really a meter, and a ton of weight is not really a ton? Because all those characteristics still indicate inferior performance as Imperial vehicles are slow, have high target profiles, and are heavy in comparison to modern armor. Redefining words to mean something else would be bending over backwards to try and cling to the unproven assumption of Imperial stuff being superior to modern stuff, despite the evidence indicating otherwise.

It's an example of fallacious logic and "begging the question" because it assumes as true the proposition that Imperial stuff is superior, and therefore any evidence that doesn't agree with that somehow must be "wrong" or "bad writing." The evidence should be used to reach the conclusion, rather than a ready made conclusion being used to accept or discard evidence.

With regards to the Eldar, they accomplish equivalent protection with far less material. FW lists the Wave Serpent and Night Spinner's armor as 10-15mm in thickness, giving AV of equivalence to a Chimera's 150mm. However, Eldar grav-tanks are more like gunships rather than conventional tanks. The FW listed combat speed for a Wave Serpent is 80 km/h and a max speed of 320 km/h. No one would think it ridiculous that a helicopter or stealth fighter cannot resist a tank round or even a WWII tank round, despite being more advanced in design and material, because their defense is not to be hit in the first place.

TrooperTino
05-08-2010, 13:48
maybe it realy means 365 mm steel as we know it, but this fictional "composite armor" has better protection against energy based weaponry, resulting in near total immunity against shaped charges.

I'm absolutly no expert, but arn't shaped charges the only thing able to crack nearly any sane value of steelarmor... without them wouldnt it be realy difficult to shoot through 36,5 cm military-grade-steel? With solid rounds for example.

Bunnahabhain
05-08-2010, 14:23
maybe it realy means 365 mm steel as we know it, but this fictional "composite armor" has better protection against energy based weaponry, resulting in near total immunity against shaped charges.

Err, we currently have composite armour on tanks, and have had for some time. It does provide very good protection against shaped charge weapons, as that is what is designed to do...



I'm absolutly no expert, but arn't shaped charges the only thing able to crack nearly any sane value of steelarmor... without them wouldnt it be realy difficult to shoot through 36,5 cm military-grade-steel? With solid rounds for example.

Again, no. Firstly very high density, kinetic energy penetrators, (currently Depleted Uranium Discarding sabot rounds) are designed to punch through even very thick armour, and do so.
Secondly, no tank armour is 365mm thick steel- that kind of thickness might be found on a battleship! The armour provides protection equivalent to that of 365mm steel (almost certainly RHA) against a specified type of attack...

TrooperTino
05-08-2010, 15:14
Thank you for clearing that. I just meant that 365mm is really much and wonder why people complain about it... I thought if this future materials the armour is made of, have charachteristics that make it harder to penetrate with these high-tech antitankrounds than we know it would... if that was the case 365mm steel äquivalent would be very much.

sry for bad english, I'm trying ;)

Edit:
"Firstly very high density, kinetic energy penetrators, (currently Depleted Uranium Discarding sabot rounds) are designed to punch through even very thick armour, and do so."

What if adamantium/ceramite, whatever this 91-95mm of composite armor on the land raider is made of, fares better against those rounds than anything we know and renders them mostly useless. What if our high-tech tricks don't work on leman russes? thats what I'm meaning.

Bunnahabhain
05-08-2010, 17:08
It's possible, but unlikely, that both Shaped charges AND KE penetrators don't work against whatever armour the Russ has. From the description of it in the IA books, they should.

Even if the AT round can't penetrate the frontal armour of the tank, it will be able to penetrate the ( normally) thinner rear armour, snap tracks etc, etc.

Also, heavy shells can literally shake tanks apart. In WW2, assorted German heavy tanks were often disabled by a number of hits from HE rounds, (as they were nigh on invulnerable to many AT rounds), that never penetrated the armour, but the shock of the impact and detonation destroyed fragile systems (radios, gunsights etc) and injure or kill the crew through throwing them around or causing bits of the tank to spall off, and fly about.

Not to mention a very simple device, the mine. They have no size limit, so if your normal AT mine doesn't destroy the tank, you simply bury a 250 Kg aircraft bomb next to it, so when the mine goes up, the bomb does too, and no tank will survive that. It is what is being done in Afganistan to attack Armour, and it works. Imagine it being done by a trained army...

In short, you can totally disable a tank without penetrating the thick armour

ckukner
05-08-2010, 23:06
I believe fluffwise every Leman Russ would be a little different from the other one. Millions of worlds so millions of different manufacturing lines. My friend told me some PC parts from certain factories works better even all of the factories use the exact plans and exact materials. Keeping that in mind some excellent build Leman Russ can possibly take out modern tanks.