Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The IG has some hydras for AA purposes. Standard chimera chassis.
But if I want a bigger tank? Could a baneblade chassis be a good choice ?

1) get a plastic baneblade.
2) use only the tracks/trackguard and engine.
3) widen the tank about 50-75% but stick with the length.
4) change the front and rear to get a platform.
5) place 4x turrets with 4 autocannnons each.
6) change the exhausts and engine.

is the size acceptable? or should it be bigger/smaller?
are those positions of the guns ( in grey) good or bad ?

My first sketch:

erm no.

Put your turrets on a bunker instead.

An AA baneblade should IMHO use the same chassis with two upgunned turrets one at the front one raised at the back. Sponsons or not as normal.

I think long ranged mega multi lasers would make good heavy flak. either that or gatling lascannon.

On multiple twin linked mounts of course.

Orlanth wrote:erm no.

Put your turrets on a bunker instead.

An AA baneblade should IMHO use the same chassis with two upgunned turrets one at the front one raised at the back. Sponsons or not as normal.

I think long ranged mega multi lasers would make good heavy flak. either that or gatling lascannon.

On multiple twin linked mounts of course.

Aren't laser weapons bad vs Aircraft ? Small concentrated energy to aim at a moving target :S
The crew would need a Machine spirit with BS 6 to hit any flyer.
So i think lascannons may never be used for AA.
The multilaser has some shots, your mega-multilaser may have S 7 / ap 5 and be heavy 3 at 60" , but even this won't be enough.
No AA -rule for multilasers,so it would need to be changed.

To use the multilaser elwhere than chimeras is a nice idea.
But i alwys thougth a Multi-laser is a AI weapon.

Put 4 Earthshakers on the baneblade mounted like the normal hydra flak turret

i actually wrote up a basilisk just like that using the vehicle design rules. it cost ALOT of points. but in the end t would of been worth all of um lol

For your project I'd say two turrets of 4 Autocannons, no more.

It would look mighty silly with 4 sets of 4 guns...

It would look silly regardless. I dont mean to be harsh but isnt this a bit over the top? Especially since it wont be more useful in apoc games then two regular hydras. Of course, if one plays apoc games with squadrons upon squadrons of flyers it might be useful (I have never seen that many flyers, even in huge battle bunker wars).

First off who cares if its impractical its awesome.

take a hint from the Germans their experimental mouse tank had two main guns a crap load of machine guns for infantry defense and its own anti aircraft guns

is that the mouse tank that ran out of fuel as soon as they got it out of the factory?

one big turret with a couple of gatling-style 6-barrel autocannon? I think that would look cooler than 4 turrets getting in each others' way. And it would also look cool when shooting ground targets.

A baneblade seems an expensive conversion base unless you're going to use all the spare bits for other things. A cheaper smaller alternative would be an extended widened chimera hull using 2 kits and double tracks.

youbedead wrote:take a hint from the Germans their experimental mouse tank had two main guns a crap load of machine guns for infantry defense and its own anti aircraft guns

Not quite that much. There was the 128mm and co-axial 75mm gun. It had a machine gun on board and pistol ports round the turret, but no lapgunner in the front, it would probably have been quite vulnerable to air attack.

change the layout, put one turret on each of the corners before the down slope of the tracks...so they are mounted on the flat of the upper chassis... it will allow for normal placement of the forward turret, and standard sponson turrets. stick with the FW TL-long range autocannons, sure quad mikes look cool but you cant hit that fightabomba from across the board with a stock autocannon...try and mimic the german panzer with the AA mount, where the side walls drop into the standing surface to help the crew reload the gun no matter where it was pointed...

Personally I'd have a baneblade chassis with a single huge AA gun on it.

Fun fact - lasers should be far better at actually hitting aircraft than bullets (what with the speed of light and all)

twin AA Gatling mega bolters. you may be glancing on 4s on most flyers but with that many shots who cares

NickOnwezen wrote:Put 4 Earthshakers on the baneblade mounted like the normal hydra flak turret

The recoil would crack the structure of every given Tank. Range may be fine but earthshakers can't provide enough Shots per minute.

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:For your project I'd say two turrets of 4 Autocannons, no more.
It would look mighty silly with 4 sets of 4 guns...

Could mount 2 turrets on a standard size Baneblade chassis. Most AA tanks look silly in one or the other way.
But 2 hydras are better than this, so I thought to use the firepower of 4x hydras. 2x2 hydras could move on pairs and shoot sometimes. One big SHT will move always and shoot.
This AA-tank may follow advancing SHT without hesitation to aim at airborne threats.

markoseugene wrote:It would look silly regardless. I dont mean to be harsh but isnt this a bit over the top? Especially since it wont be more useful in apoc games then two regular hydras. Of course, if one plays apoc games with squadrons upon squadrons of flyers it might be useful (I have never seen that many flyers, even in huge battle bunker wars).

over the top? :S which top exists in Apoc ??

Normally you need a lot of AA-fire to down a flyer. The Hydra autocannons are Heavy 2 , so 4 of them provide 8 shots with BS 3 and
we know how IG uses Ammo.

Clang wrote:one big turret with a couple of gatling-style 6-barrel autocannon? I think that would look cooler than 4 turrets getting in each others' way. And it would also look cool when shooting ground targets.

A baneblade seems an expensive conversion base unless you're going to use all the spare bits for other things. A cheaper smaller alternative would be an extended widened chimera hull using 2 kits and double tracks.

The price is never a real threat if you field vehicles at company level.
Chimeras would be fine for a conversion to a heavy tank (macharius). A baneblade is just 4x times bigger than a chimera and my
little sketch may hint on a enlarged baneblade. Would equal 6x chimeras in volume.

About: "one big turret with a couple of gatling-style 6-barrel autocannon? "
Those AA guns have a minimum range of 12" and max range of 72" . If changed from 4 barrel to 6 barrel :
wouldn't it change the rules and options too?

A 6-barrel weapon may have 5-6 times more shots = 10 - 12 tries to hit something at 4+ .
Looks not like "strafe the infantry"

I think your idea is fine for a mid-sized AA-tank.

jep'ray wrote:change the layout, put one turret on each of the corners before the down slope of the tracks...so they are mounted on the flat of the upper chassis... it will allow for normal placement of the forward turret, and standard sponson turrets. stick with the FW TL-long range autocannons, sure quad mikes look cool but you cant hit that fightabomba from across the board with a stock autocannon...try and mimic the german panzer with the AA mount, where the side walls drop into the standing surface to help the crew reload the gun no matter where it was pointed...

To turn those turrets 90° is an option.

I know this old AA-tank (ostwind?) and it had open topped guns. On this project I will try to use the design of the 1970's where
AA tanks with double or quad MK were available. I like the design of the hydra-turret cause it resembles those of the Gepard.
The autocannon on a imperial hydra has autoloaders and I believe a "guided by the machine spirit" AA weapon should't be
loaded from humans standing on a open topped tank.Just a design issue.

The Dreadnote wrote:Personally I'd have a baneblade chassis with a single huge AA gun on it.

Fun fact - lasers should be far better at actually hitting aircraft than bullets (what with the speed of light and all)

Single huge AA gun does mean ..? any specific type to tell ?

Lasers will hit but don't hurt those vital parts as often as needed to down the flyer.
Some xenos may design their aircraft to survive thousands of laser-holes but won't make it against explosions inside and close to.
And thats what AA guns use: explosive ammo. No little holes just shower those pesky flyer with payloads of bullets and even close
"hits" will do some damage.

lanman wrote:twin AA Gatling mega bolters. you may be glancing on 4s on most flyers but with that many shots who cares

Twin VMB ? 30x shots
The range of the VMB deals with the disadvantage of assault cannons ( 60" ).

But a 30 shot vehicle may lead to shoot the infantry, not the flyer.



Soo much replies
Appriciate this.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

youbedead wrote:take a hint from the Germans their experimental mouse tank had two main guns a crap load of machine guns for infantry defense and its own anti aircraft guns

Not quite that much. There was the 128mm and co-axial 75mm gun. It had a machine gun on board and pistol ports round the turret, but no lapgunner in the front, it would probably have been quite vulnerable to air attack.

sorry i must been thinking about the rat, you know the one that was never built and probably wouldn't of even moved

youbedead wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

youbedead wrote:take a hint from the Germans their experimental mouse tank had two main guns a crap load of machine guns for infantry defense and its own anti aircraft guns

Not quite that much. There was the 128mm and co-axial 75mm gun. It had a machine gun on board and pistol ports round the turret, but no lapgunner in the front, it would probably have been quite vulnerable to air attack.

sorry i must been thinking about the rat, you know the one that was never built and probably wouldn't of even moved

There was no rat

The one "unmoving" tank was the Maus. It was never built because it is only a concept. Prototypes showed the lack of an appropriate engine. Remember the smaller Kingtiger had 60 tons and a Maus would be over 80 tons.

1hadhq wrote:There was no rat

I've heard of it, but it's a massive silly thing that was never made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

The one "unmoving" tank was the Maus. It was never built because it is only a concept. Prototypes showed the lack of an appropriate engine. Remember the smaller Kingtiger had 60 tons and a Maus would be over 80 tons.

Several Maus' were built, four chassis completed but only one got a turret as far as I know. The Maus that exists in the Kublinka museum is the turret recovered from one found destroyed (after being abandoned whilst in transport) and put on the chassis of the prototype recovered complete, this originally had a dummy turret. They weighed approx 190 tonnes.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

1hadhq wrote:There was no rat

I've heard of it, but it's a massive silly thing that was never made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

The one "unmoving" tank was the Maus. It was never built because it is only a concept. Prototypes showed the lack of an appropriate engine. Remember the smaller Kingtiger had 60 tons and a Maus would be over 80 tons.

Several Maus' were built, four chassis completed but only one got a turret as far as I know. The Maus that exists in the Kublinka museum is the turret recovered from one found destroyed (after being abandoned whilst in transport) and put on the chassis of the prototype recovered complete, this originally had a dummy turret. They weighed approx 190 tonnes.

mixed up Maus and E-100.Sorry.

Maus = 9x prototypes. At 1000 HP only 20 km/h :S As said = 190 tons.
E-100 = 1x prototype. only concept drawings. weight = 140 tons.

If you want effective AA defence, several small vehicles are better than one big one.

Yeah already had this idea, got the turrets coming in about two weeks, running it without any sponsons and with a radar/control tower coming off the side aircraft carrier style. should look good post pics when done.

This said, before i put it together have some mega bolsters kicking about will try them on for size..... hmmm 4 AA mount twin -linked VMB (60 shots +rerolls) that can be use separately at aircraft and infantry, no sponsons so Armour would be 14, 14, 12. It Could work. And since the stormlord can take one and still have room for 40 troops plus gear, i don't see any space issues. i will beseech the machine spirit to allow me to tinker with the idea and get back to you

Nah its not overboard, its just very, very wrong

VEHICLE DATAFAX
Name (Hydrablade) Points (1200) Front Armour(14) Side Armour(14) Rear Armour(12) BS3(4)

Type:Tank

Size:War machine

Speed:Lumbering

Weapons: 16 x Twin-linked Autocannon

Special Options: Targeters (BS4)

Vehicle Category:War machine

Structure Points:3

960 if you drop the targeter

keep in mind that the normal baneblade is 633 instead of 500 under the same system

nice concept i think that 3 turrets would be better