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.

All I want is pistols that aren't the size of people's entire head&torso. *glares at wytchs*

I don't care too much about realism, but the Chimera and Russ are both awful, awful designs.

DeathReaper wrote:So who is to say what kind of gravity the planets 38,000 years in the future have?

The IG Chimera could be barely touching the ground because the gravity is so low on all of these worlds.

You find Stormravens "No problem" even though the wingspan would not even come close to providing enough lift for a craft even half its size, let along a full sized one carrying 12 troopers in power armor, and a ten tonne dreadnought on the back in the magna-grapple, but the design of the IG Chimera makes you all bent out of shape about realism?

Interesting take on it.

Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.

Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

Ciaphas wrote: One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.

Ciaphas wrote:The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918.

Minor historical error, Tanks were first used in 1916 during the Somme fighting, and more extensively in 1917.

I had a good look around for my chimera model, but unforunately couldn't find it. However, I don't remember it having a particulary bad ground clearance, probably about the same as the ww1 designs they are vaguely based on.

According to one site the ground clearance of a chimera is 0.45 meters. This is actually pretty decent, most tanks, past and present, have something around that. The MkIV british tank of WW1 (the main version used during the war) had a slightly lower ground clearance than that. The German first attempt at a tank had far less than that, and a modern M1 is just greater than that.

I'm not sure of the scale of the models, the vehicles always seem out of scale to the troops. But a 28mm/heroic scale would mean that ground clearance on the chimera model should be around 8mm give or take a tiny bit.

mwnciboo wrote:M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)

That would make the M1 exert more psi than the ww1 MkIV, The one source I coud find showing ground pressure listed it as 13psi fully loaded.

As for the historical error, Tanks trials were held in 1915 and many glaring design flaws change before tanks were rushed into production for the Somme in 1916 with distarious results. grounding, breakdowns, etc. They were used on mass and successfully at Cambrai in 1918.

The male M4 tank in WW1 had a psi of 13. and weighed 29 ton.
The M1 Abrams had a Psi of 15 and weighed 68 ton.
The tracks on the Abrams is 1.5 times wider than the M4.

Using a model and scaleing up the side armour ground clearance, of the chimera chassis, is approx 2 and a half inches.
The width of its tracks is just enough to hold a child with two ice creams and a lollypop.

puree wrote:

hashrat wrote:
I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality

Admittedly, I had forgotten about the side skirts, but that doesn't really look that much different to something like a matilda, which had very low down almost to ground skirts.

The clearance on matildas was about the same as any other tank, give or take an of inch or 2 (varied by model).

The ground clearance on a bradley, by the way, is less than a 'few feet', its about 18".

I think people have some what mistaken views on tank/armor ground clearnces, they assume it is higher than it is. ~18" is about normal, most tanks past and present have been within an inch or 2 of that. Tanks on the whole seek to be as low to the ground as they can get away with (smaller target), and rely on very low ground pressure to avoid grounding issues.

Yeah i think theres a difference lol. One has no ground clearence and tiny tracks. The other is a tank,

ciaphas wrote:As for the historical error, Tanks trials were held in 1915 and many glaring design flaws change before tanks were rushed into production for the Somme in 1916 with distarious results. grounding, breakdowns, etc. They were used on mass and successfully at Cambrai in 1918.

Cambrai was 1917.

Ciaphas wrote:

puree wrote:

hashrat wrote:
I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality

Admittedly, I had forgotten about the side skirts, but that doesn't really look that much different to something like a matilda, which had very low down almost to ground skirts.

The clearance on matildas was about the same as any other tank, give or take an of inch or 2 (varied by model).

The ground clearance on a bradley, by the way, is less than a 'few feet', its about 18".

I think people have some what mistaken views on tank/armor ground clearnces, they assume it is higher than it is. ~18" is about normal, most tanks past and present have been within an inch or 2 of that. Tanks on the whole seek to be as low to the ground as they can get away with (smaller target), and rely on very low ground pressure to avoid grounding issues.

Yeah i think theres a difference lol. One has no ground clearence and tiny tracks. The other is a tank,

However, this is the only real flaw the Chimera and LRBT have in their design. The other supposed flaws go away when you realize the models are not properly proportioned from Turret to Gun and Turret to Body.

The LR seems to be based on a combination of the char b and a british ww1 tank.





Both have full on sides, the 40k ones are certainly not as well designed. But as noted elsewhere this isn't a realistic game, the IOM vehicles in particular are meant to look archaic and almost non-functionable without the help of the tech preists and machine spirits.

As to the matilda, remember this tank is most famous for fighting in the desert, not a place reknowned for solid ground. Yet those low skirts didn't stop it dead. The matilda also had (visually) narrow tracks. It is not narrowness that counts though, it is ground pressure. I suspect that the chimera tracks are not really as bad as some are making out either, but without finding my model to measure I can't check it out.

Basically the ground clearance on the chimera between the tracks looks spot on, the tracks themselves look fine and the side skirts look, well , mmm. But I love how they look.

McNinja wrote:They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.

Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.

The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.

There is no Imperium without the Emperor is he within the current understanding of physics?.

Cant say I have ever looked at any units and thought if they would work in our current time

puree wrote:The LR seems to be based on a combination of the char b and a british ww1 tank.





Both have full on sides, the 40k ones are certainly not as well designed. But as noted elsewhere this isn't a realistic game, the IOM vehicles in particular are meant to look archaic and almost non-functionable without the help of the tech preists and machine spirits.

As to the matilda, remember this tank is most famous for fighting in the desert, not a place reknowned for solid ground. Yet those low skirts didn't stop it dead. The matilda also had (visually) narrow tracks. It is not narrowness that counts though, it is ground pressure. I suspect that the chimera tracks are not really as bad as some are making out either, but without finding my model to measure I can't check it out.

Basically the ground clearance on the chimera between the tracks looks spot on, the tracks themselves look fine and the side skirts look, well , mmm. But I love how they look.

Its a simple thing the sides need to be no wider than the tracks, as above shows clearly. The chimera tracks and indeed Rhino etc are very narrow. But I like your post because you explain that you love the look. I respect that. This is a discussion about how we can improve things for all of us. Not a fight over or a bashing of GW just things that people would like to see improved or indeed not. Personally it grinds on me so asiI've said before I may custom my own vehicals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkyMark wrote:

McNinja wrote:They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.

Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.

The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.

There is no Imperium without the Emperor is he within the current understanding of physics?.

Cant say I have ever looked at any units and thought if they would work in our current time

Don't question the Emperor!!!!!

seriously? O.o youre arguing about the depth of the track of the model? the thing thats made of plastic? the model thats part of a GAME? last time i checked they didnt need to be 100% realistic, to scale, and completely functional in order to enjoy the game. for heavens sake why worry about this when you could be thinking of all the people who died during the second construction of the death star! THINK OF THEIR FAMILIES AND HOW MUCH THEYVE LOST!!!

i wish this is all i had to worry about...

And you came here and took time out of your busy schedule to post that pointless nonsense dufus? Who said they "needed" to be 100% realistic? Can you read? Do you even grasp the nature of the topic?

I would tell you to grow up, but I assume you are mentally deficient and therfore unable.

Comming here and posting that stupid backwards reply, is all you have to worry about it would seem.

As for the Matilda, notice that its side skirts end above the tracks, not next to them.

I think dufus was trying to inject a little humour into the thread, chill.

We could discuss the impracticalities and impossibilities of Tactical Dreadnought Armour all day but it still won't bring back all those construction workers and loyal clones....

MarkyMark wrote:

McNinja wrote:They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.

Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.

The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.

There is no Imperium without the Emperor is he within the current understanding of physics?.

Cant say I have ever looked at any units and thought if they would work in our current time

Clearly not. He is the FI part of Sci-Fi, made plausible by the fluff, the same way Mass Effect made Mass Relays and Biotics plausible in their universe.

It isn't just that they would work in our current time. Sure, they'd work, but the designs are so inefficient, so dumb, that you can't help but notice. There are reasons why no tank has huge flat sides or massive exposed treads, we've learned lessons throughout history that have taught us certain things about physics and vehicles that makes those designs obsolete.

dufus0001 wrote:seriously? O.o youre arguing about the depth of the track of the model? the thing thats made of plastic? the model thats part of a GAME? last time i checked they didnt need to be 100% realistic, to scale, and completely functional in order to enjoy the game. for heavens sake why worry about this when you could be thinking of all the people who died during the second construction of the death star! THINK OF THEIR FAMILIES AND HOW MUCH THEYVE LOST!!!

i wish this is all i had to worry about...

Typical skip poster. Read the last two posts on a 7 page topic and make a pointless statement before moving on. Thx for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hashrat wrote:And you came here and took time out of your busy schedule to post that pointless nonsense dufus? Who said they "needed" to be 100% realistic? Can you read? Do you even grasp the nature of the topic?

I would tell you to grow up, but I assume you are mentally deficient and therfore unable.

Comming here and posting that stupid backwards reply, is all you have to worry about it would seem.

As for the Matilda, notice that its side skirts end above the tracks, not next to them.

Now that's funny. Lol.

If you don't like the official designs there are plenty of good historical kits on the market. I bought Tamiya 1/35 scale armoured car and tank kits for my armies.

If it's all suppose to be scale, then a Forge World Titan would have to be like four or five feet tall. The feet on these are suppose to be able to smash entire platoons.

Only Warlords can do that. Reavers and Warhounds are just about the correct size(maybe a little on the small size)

They arn't all that much bigger. Warhounds are only 50-60 ft tall canonically.

Oh well I stand corrected then. I'll admit that I don't really know. But, still, we can compare a marine to a human. A hoomee will usually stand between 5 - 6 ft. A marine is often considered, in some text, as being 3 meters tall. Which makes them almost 9 feet tall. This is acceptible within the confines of what the fluff says. Though some times this varries, I've read books where Hive Tyrants were only 6 feet tall, when they should really be double that.

So anyway. If a marine is 9 ft. Give or take. Then a trygon should be almost ten times that. To fit within the scale, that assume tehy can eat a marine whole. That would mean the model, being about 7" inch tall, versus the 3" marine model, means the Trygon should be more like 30" tall, versus the marine. So then about the size of titan.

I might have gone off the reservation on that one, just slap me and tell me i' wrong lol.

Ciaphas wrote:This is a discussion about how we can improve things for all of us.

I think I have to disagree with that. The look of the minis and the whacky proportions, 'that woud never work' feel of the IOM is part of what makes 40k the one mini game I like (I'm mainly in to board wargaming, old avalon hill style stuff etc). Having IG tanks that were actually in scale, or looking 'realistic' would detract a lot from the game IMO. Obvioulsy that is subjective, but I don't think you can say that making the tanks realistic would improve things for all of us.

McNinja wrote:It isn't just that they would work in our current time. Sure, they'd work, but the designs are so inefficient, so dumb, that you can't help but notice. There are reasons why no tank has huge flat sides or massive exposed treads, we've learned lessons throughout history that have taught us certain things about physics and vehicles that makes those designs obsolete.

That of course is the point of the IOM, they are using what are 'obsolete' designs, holy designs that cannot be changed, that require priests and machine spirits to function. The problem is how do you portray 10,000 years of obsolesance when that is still 1000s of years in our future. The imagery requires that we instantly identify with obsolete, and going back to tanks that look like they are straight out ww1 or the inter war years is how you do that. Any attempt to change that would seriously impact on the games imagery and what it is trying to portray.

Marines are more in the 7-8ft range actually. 9ft marines are rare.

TDA does add some height though.

Yar, well the truth is that, the game has no scale. If the models were to scale then the marines would be tiny or the tanks would be huge. I dont wanna paint or haul around something that big.

Ciaphas wrote:Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.

Ciaphas wrote:Physics includes gravity.

Why not comment about the gravity?

It is clear you think that the Physics has to take the gravity of the world into account.

Ciaphas wrote:Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.

The SR could not fly.

The wings are not even the right shape to provide lift.

The turbulence would tear the aircraft apart, Yet you have no problem with that (Or the Stormraven or Thunderhawk which have the same problems?)

I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.

I actually don't have a problem with scale tweaking. It really only shows when you are mixing armies (in the came of SM & IG units) or using old models mixed with new (like my 1/2 Rogue trader Ork army and 1/2 5th ed), and frankly most of the Heroic Scale proportions are about making a 25mm fig look good to a 6' dude who's standing 3' away. I have painted a lot of wonderful models that were brilliantly proportioned and subtle, but from more than a few feet away my GW Gandalf looked more compelling than the infinitely better crafted Mithril Miniatures Gandalf.

My real hang up (and yes, it's a hang up, not something that will ever affect anyone else) is things that resemble Modern Earth Norm enough to be recognizable but have something wrong with them (like every halfling/runtling/hobbit figure ever modeled by GW), or for that matter things that are completely alien but unnecessarily anthropomorphized into a human like posture. I mean, why does a Necron have a completely artificial body and not have integrated weaponry? Why can they make a destroyer but not build a Command Barge that's sentient like a Cylon Raider or at least Integrated like Pilot/Moya? I mean, if you can turn my ass into a hoverjet, why do you need two human shaped guys to chauffer around an overlord? I mean, I like the argument that the human form helps a Necron keep a sense of hope for some form of salvation, but there were plenty of completely alien functionaries in the Necron arsenal that are at least effective enough to be the brains driving a Resurrection Barge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.

You know, I don't get why one has to have a consistent beef with Every improbable thing in a fantastic universe in order to have a beef with One such thing. No one is telling you what to think, why are you dictating what I and others can think?

variable wrote:

I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.

You know, I don't get why one has to have a consistent beef with Every improbable thing in a fantastic universe in order to have a beef with One such thing. No one is telling you what to think, why are you dictating what I and others can think?

Because he said this:

Ciaphas wrote:I'm getting more and more annoyed with the bad and impossible design of vehicles in 40 k.

If you have an issue with the "bad and impossible design" aspect of the models, then why not have an issue with the "bad and impossible design" aspect of the models?

To single out one issue with one vehicle and say the other impossibilities are "No problem" is hypocritical.

I was just pointing that out.

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

i think i would take the IG chimera version over riding in that one again. the chimera isn't an impossible design. tanks need a low clearance profile to avoid rollover. (its alot easier to do than one would think)

Kilkrazy wrote:If you don't like the official designs there are plenty of good historical kits on the market. I bought Tamiya 1/35 scale armoured car and tank kits for my armies.

I've been looking at a Taimya Flakpanzer Gepard in 1/35 for a conversion, how do the Tamiya kits scale to Imperial Guard?

DeathReaper wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.

Ciaphas wrote:Physics includes gravity.

Why not comment about the gravity?

It is clear you think that the Physics has to take the gravity of the world into account.

Ciaphas wrote:Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.

The SR could not fly.

The wings are not even the right shape to provide lift.

The turbulence would tear the aircraft apart, Yet you have no problem with that (Or the Stormraven or Thunderhawk which have the same problems?)

I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.

I was not going to comment on your riduclus gravity comment that how do we know what gravity on planets will be like in 38000 years time? You know what I'm still not its to dumb a statement.
And thruster lift has nothing to do with wing shape or even wings at all. Look at rockets. If your going toake a point once fine. If yout going to make the same point again at least get it right

Rockets still have functioning wings.

The SR is supposed to be VTOL, but its design prevents this.

The thrust needed to carry a squad full of marines and a dreadnought would need to be off the charts.

The fuel it would consume would give it a flight time of about 21 seconds.

If it were made more like a helicopter, you might have a point, but it is supposed to be a jet powered aircraft.

The fuselage is not designed for high speed travel, or even atmospheric entry and exit.

Ciaphas wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.

Ciaphas wrote:Physics includes gravity.

Why not comment about the gravity?

It is clear you think that the Physics has to take the gravity of the world into account.

Ciaphas wrote:Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.

The SR could not fly.

The wings are not even the right shape to provide lift.

The turbulence would tear the aircraft apart, Yet you have no problem with that (Or the Stormraven or Thunderhawk which have the same problems?)

I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.

I was not going to comment on your riduclus gravity comment that how do we know what gravity on planets will be like in 38000 years time? You know what I'm still not its to dumb a statement.
And thruster lift has nothing to do with wing shape or even wings at all. Look at rockets. If your going to make a point once fine. If your going to make the same point again at least try and get it right

DeathReaper wrote:
So who is to say what kind of gravity the planets 38,000 years in the future have?

The IG Chimera could be barely touching the ground because the gravity is so low on all of these worlds.

And if I wish to start a thread about what I believe are bad and impossible vehical designs in 40 k I will. Its not up to you to tell me that I have to include other vehicals you have a problem with. That's your own view, not mine. You can't just throw out genalisations as facts, like your ill thought out non fact based flyer comments. You obviously have no idea about velocity, thrust and lift or gravity. If you actually knew anything about them you would quickly find that simple, physics based explanations allow them to function (and that does not include all planets gravity becoming so light that they float above the ground in 38000 years time) damn it I couldn't help but mention your gravity question.

Storm Raven might look stupid, but they have anti-grav units, so making it fly isn't a problem.

Hurricane bolters shooting front thrusters off might be, though. But at least it has good enough armour to protect it from its own bolters...