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.

Kaldor wrote:

chrisrawr wrote:It lists a 365mm steel equivalent comparison. This is canon.

Firstly, Lexicanum is not canon. Some of the sources it draws from are cannon. No source is given for your 365mm steel comparison.

Further, how is that 365mm steel comparison intended? Pure kinetic resistance? Resistance to melta weaponry? Las weaponry?

Adamantium is noted (again, in the NON-canon Lexicanum) as being "impenetrable to most commonplace weapons". And we know nothing about the properties of ceramite or plasteel.

The armour values are from one of the early Imperial Armour books. If they mean contemporary steel then imperial vehicles would'nt be particularly durable, no matter if it is measured against meltas, lascanons or missiles.
Of course, one can assume that the "steel" is some kind of strange scifi steel which is much harder and more durable than any modern day steel.

Ciaphas wrote:

CuddlySquig wrote:I think the OP is really just trying to show off how much he knows about the physics in tank design.

I think your just trying to post something, anything , just as long as your involved.

My trying to post something, anything, just as long as my involved?

To repeat, as it appears to have got lost or ignored in this morass of a thread, this is what word of god says WRT IG tanks:

...Take the Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th Century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutley no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays.
IG tanks don't have the proper sloped armour and that is quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed.

The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging to the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations are embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel.

Thanks for all the replies. Some of the comments were well thought out points on both sides.
I think ultimately all players and modellers will get from the game what they want. To me it seems such a shame that with all the sculpting and design talent out there that we are stuck with vehicals that even when well painted still look like toys from the pound shop. But cost like toys from Harrods.
When I made my bane blade I could hear the throb of the engine and the squeal of the tracks. I could smell the exhaust and felt the ground shake.
In short it transported me 38000 years into a dark future where there is only war, if only for a brief period. It looks right, it feels right, it helps immerse you in atmosphere. When I step back from the table and look at all the troops, buildings, aliens and vehicles I like to see a snapshot of this grim future.
Bring on a leman Russ and I'm back in the bargain bucket of the pound shop with a rather silly looking toy.

Ciaphas wrote:
When I made my bane blade I could hear the throb of the engine and the squeal of the tracks. I could smell the exhaust and felt the ground shake... Bring on a leman Russ and I'm back in the bargain bucket of the pound shop with a rather silly looking toy.

Wait, wait wait wait, wait wait, wait.

The Leman Russ is a 'toy' and yet the Baneblade isn't?!

infinite_array wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:
When I made my bane blade I could hear the throb of the engine and the squeal of the tracks. I could smell the exhaust and felt the ground shake... Bring on a leman Russ and I'm back in the bargain bucket of the pound shop with a rather silly looking toy.

Wait, wait wait wait, wait wait, wait.

The Leman Russ is a 'toy' and yet the Baneblade isn't?!

Sigh.... do I really have to explain again after 5 pages of good debate. If you actually read what I said.....the bane blade is well thought out and when painted and made looks like the real thing. It looks and feels right. The Russ ' looks ' like a silly toy for all of the reasons people have said before which im not going to go over again so you can just skip to the last post and put up a witty picture.

The Baneblade is a giant hulking mobile-fortress. IRL it wouldn't even be able to drive on roads and would constantly get stuck in just about everything. Would require too much fuel to move 10 feet and airpower would turn it into swiss cheese. The Germans learned the hard lesson of why you shouldn't tanks so big they're basically pillboxes.

So no, the Baneblade really isn't realistic at all. The closest you get to "realism" in 40k, in terms of accurate depictions of futuristic tactics/weapons/strategy/so on, is the Tau. And even that stretches it very far.

Except the Baneblade isn't as big as the Maus tank. its only about three times the size of other vehicles in 40k.

Not to mention that treads reduce the ground pressure significantly. A regular car exerts more ground pressure then a MBT because the weight is spread out.

Its the same reason why womens restrooms get the floor replaced more often then the mens. Women are lighter, but their heels magnify the pressure to be several magnitudes greater then a regular shoe to cause more wear.


A baneblade would only have an issue with being slow. the ground isn't going to swallow it up.

Harriticus wrote:The Baneblade is a giant hulking mobile-fortress. IRL it wouldn't even be able to drive on roads and would constantly get stuck in just about everything. Would require too much fuel to move 10 feet and airpower would turn it into swiss cheese. The Germans learned the hard lesson of why you shouldn't tanks so big they're basically pillboxes.

So no, the Baneblade really isn't realistic at all. The closest you get to "realism" in 40k, in terms of accurate depictions of futuristic tactics/weapons/strategy/so on, is the Tau. And even that stretches it very far.

As Grey Templar points out, you think the Bane blade is massive because of the 2 CV sized other vehicals in 40k.
Also haven't all the supporters of these small strange vehicals constantly mentioned futuristic engine, super light materials etc or does that only apply to vehicals that look ww1?
The bane blade is a beast of a tank but looks like it could exsist in the future. Anyway your point rather fails when you see the size increase of tanks since conception to modern times.

As for maneuverability.....and size........
.
.

The Leman Russ seems to have enough ground clearance to me:

It is amazing how people get the wrong end of the stick. I have to say I concur with the original poster. Being labelled Science fiction does not excuse poor work, either in the models or the rules and background. Look at the lengths the likes of Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke went to as science fiction authors to produce quality, believable and probable work.

Examples of lazy science fiction are the likes of Stargate not having any p90 pouches anywhere on characters despite the fact they'd cost a few quid to buy and yet the characters are always somehow pulling spare mags out of thin air or the octopus thingy in Prometheus growing to something the size of a small car despite having nothing to feed on. ¬¬

There are no excuses for such laziness. Not for the money we as fans pay. Why would you possibly settle for second rate?

Frenchie

Frenchie wrote:It is amazing how people get the wrong end of the stick. I have to say I concur with the original poster. Being labelled Science fiction does not excuse poor work, either in the models or the rules and background. Look at the lengths the likes of Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke went to as science fiction authors to produce quality, believable and probable work.

Examples of lazy science fiction are the likes of Stargate not having any p90 pouches anywhere on characters despite the fact they'd cost a few quid to buy and yet the characters are always somehow pulling spare mags out of thin air or the octopus thingy in Prometheus growing to something the size of a small car despite having nothing to feed on. ¬¬

There are no excuses for such laziness. Not for the money we as fans pay. Why would you possibly settle for second rate?

Though I don't disagree with you, it would be fair to point out that Clarke and Asimov are both writers of hard sci-fi, not a subgenre which has much influenced 40k, which draws principally upon pulpier stuff: space opera (particularly Frank Herbert) and military sci-fi (particularly Robert Heinlein.

When assessing the (exceedingly limited) literary merits of GW's output, however, I can't help but agree that for the money we pay, they should be capable of better.

Frenchie wrote:It is amazing how people get the wrong end of the stick. I have to say I concur with the original poster. Being labelled Science fiction does not excuse poor work, either in the models or the rules and background. Look at the lengths the likes of Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke went to as science fiction authors to produce quality, believable and probable work.

Examples of lazy science fiction are the likes of Stargate not having any p90 pouches anywhere on characters despite the fact they'd cost a few quid to buy and yet the characters are always somehow pulling spare mags out of thin air or the octopus thingy in Prometheus growing to something the size of a small car despite having nothing to feed on. ¬¬

There are no excuses for such laziness. Not for the money we as fans pay. Why would you possibly settle for second rate?

Frenchie

I have seen plenty of SG1 episodes where they have p90 pouches and Prometheus proto facehugger grew because it grew... who said it needed food anyway..its and alien lol

OP
I agree for the most part, when is come to the survivability of the armour the 40k tanks have..well we can never know, but everything else about them we can work out, for example the LR profile is so high any reall antitank unit would be able to pick it off at long range, cant hide that thing very well lol.

The usual explanation for fast-growing xenos is that they carry ultradense CHON and their biology is usually very pourous and... uh... the word for the opposite of dense. I forgot it :I

Fluffy?

And damn you Frenchie, you spoiled the next episode

chrisrawr wrote:The usual explanation for fast-growing xenos is that they carry ultradense CHON and their biology is usually very pourous and... uh... the word for the opposite of dense. I forgot it :I

sparse?

Sparse works; undense or uncompressed apparently also works.

Grey Templar wrote:Except the Baneblade isn't as big as the Maus tank. its only about three times the size of other vehicles in 40k.

Panzer VIII Maus: 10,2 metres long

Baneblade: 13,5 metres long

Ok, I was wrong on that one.

But the fact that a vehicle that big is perfectly capable of moving normally still stands. It just needs to spread the weight out.


Heck, Battletanks exert less pressure then animals.

An Abrams tank only puts out about 15 PSI. Less then a full grown horse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure

A tank the size of a Baneblade/Maus's biggest concern would be how much of a target for airstrikes it would make. Of course the same has been true for all tanks since airpower became a factor so its really a non-issue.

And power source concerns would actually be less then a smaller tank. At that size you can put a Nuclear reactor in the vehicle to power it.

You see, this is why women don't play 40k - because size matters.

I agree on the tracks on the IG stuff (and Land Raiders)

I ws trying to put together a model for the Golden Demon - but abandoned it as the track structure is so stupid it cant work. There is no suspension. The Rhino is fine, but the others the armour pretty much reaches the ground. Great on road. Useless on things like , well, grass.

Grey Templar wrote:Heck, Battletanks exert less pressure then animals.

While pressure is important, total weight is just as important. Some streets and bridges will collapse under too much weight.

True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.

Grey Templar wrote:True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.

318 tons? Hah, no. Most major bridges cap out at 10-15 tons, with smaller, "country road" bridges having a listed safety maximum of 5 tons.

dracostandard wrote:I agree on the tracks on the IG stuff (and Land Raiders)

I ws trying to put together a model for the Golden Demon - but abandoned it as the track structure is so stupid it cant work. There is no suspension. The Rhino is fine, but the others the armour pretty much reaches the ground. Great on road. Useless on things like , well, grass.

I know what you mean. You sound like a serious modelers so perhaps the realistic/possible look only effects us like this as quite a few posters on here don't care if its badly designed or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.

318 tons? Hah, no. Most major bridges cap out at 10-15 tons, with smaller, "country road" bridges having a listed safety maximum of 5 tons.

Completely wrong im afraid. These weight limits are working limits and have a safty factor of 5.0 minimum built in.
Some of the older bridges much more. What this means in layman's terms is a 15 ton bridge will easily handle 45 tons. 15 x 5.0. But this is civilian safety, who worry about being sued and bridge longevity etc. Military safety is cross the bridge if possible. Also your weight estimate s' for most major bridges '
Is ludicrously out. Not to mention futuristic bridging materiels. And to finish with banblades would almost exclusively be used to attack major targets and strong points and these would have main bridges over any waterways. For instance the Golden gate bridge could hold 170000 people!

All major highways have such bridges. That's why the allies attempted operation Market Garden and tried to capture the bridges of eindhoven , nejmargen, and Arnhem.

Lol, the flyers always bug me too.

Valkyrie, no flaps or slats or Ailerons, those little nozels on the wings are also supposed to make it hover? It cannot fly, it litterally can not get airborne, even if it did it wouldn't achieve anything beyond crashing. I do not think anything other than the Ork Bomber looks like it could ever achieve flight.

Is it important? No, Does it impact the game in any way? Nope, does it bother me when I fork out up to £200 for a poorly designed model that looks like a child created it? Yeah, I must admit it does.

hashrat wrote:Lol, the flyers always bug me too.

Valkyrie, no flaps or slats or Ailerons, those little nozels on the wings are also supposed to make it hover? It cannot fly, it litterally can not get airborne, even if it did it wouldn't achieve anything beyond crashing. I do not think anything other than the Ork Bomber looks like it could ever achieve flight.

Is it important? No, Does it impact the game in any way? Nope, does it bother me when I fork out up to £200 for a poorly designed model that looks like a child created it? Yeah, I must admit it does.

That's all this thread was about. If people aren't bothered that'sfine but I can't understand why GW have designed so badly and can do so well else where. They need lessons from the other manufactureres out there like FW. The orc bomber ' mig15' and the necron and elder flyers etc are all pretty cool and look like theyhave plausible character. The space marine thing is a joke IMO. Its a badly designed uglybrick which many player are already trying to convert. The IG stuff I'm OK with at
least they look functional. The Valkyrie should be able to hover,the harriers hover nozzles wernt that big and the Valkyrie would have much lighter and better materials than the
harrier, not to mention gravitational compensators and more thrust than a thusty thing.

I, um... I lack the knowledge necessary to be offended by the lack of sound design for WH40k vehicles.

:: sits in the corner and sips tea ::

Wait... Forgeworld makes realistic designs that might work in the real world? Clearly you've not seen the Hierophant.

Rae Ruen wrote:Wait... Forgeworld makes realistic designs that might work in the real world? Clearly you've not seen the Hierophant.

They do, unfortunately they work in the real world Circa the 41st Millennium where all vehicles are built to the specifications of the STC, so we will likely not get to see them in action.

The models were not designed to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The models give us an idea of what the vehicles are like in the year 40,000 in a fictional universe.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the vehicles of the 41st Millenium, or the movement of those vehicles in simulations of battles fought 38,000 years from now.

They work Perfectly fine in the fiction, implying that the Land Raider would get stuck on grass in the real world is like saying that A Stargate could never work like that because the gravity of the wormhole would crush the people that went through it.

We really do not know if the vehicle are a bad design in the 41st Millennium, maybe wait and see how well they work then?