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.

Aren't the IG tanks a bad design? (if they were real) as they have really slab sides and don't have any suspension? (yes they have those springs but the tracks wouldn't have any travel) also what are those bomb shaped objects on the front sides?

Yes they are. Those are for adjusting the tension in the tracks.

/thread

No, because the battle cannon would make most of our tanks disappear.

IG tanks are based off post WWI tanks, so they look very poorly designed from our perspective. But to make up for this they have really thick armor, a gun-of-doom and the fact that when they are deployed, there's normally 3 zillion of 'em.

As long as this thread has been necromanced, I'll add my 2 cents.

If you think IG design is bad, look to Land Raiders.

Cambak wrote:

No, because the battle cannon would make most of our tanks disappear.

The types like you are infintessimally more annoying; if you think a post stands on old ground, just don't read it: I've not seen a topic along these lines before... so I'm glad the OP here has made a new post (since replying to an old one really would be necromancy). Get your head out your nether regions and just don't post if you don't like it ¬_¬

Rant done.

Yeah IG tanks are a bad design, but I think the hull on the sides has to be flat in order to support the sponsoons, I'm not exactly mechanically minded but I just imagine the Leman Russ as a slow behemoth (lumbering behemoth, anyone?) that's designed for the kind of static warfare that the IG are designed to fight. It's got thick armour and thus rids itself of mobility in favour of being one helluva crawling firebase?

They're modelled on the old inter-war infantry tanks when tanks weren't treated as a mobile design, but more of an infantry support vehicle designed to creep up ahead of them in static warfare. Feel free to disagree.

Exarch_Nektel wrote:As long as this thread has been necromanced, I'll add my 2 cents.

If you think IG design is bad, look to Land Raiders.

Not necroed, The Dreadnote simply managed to travel back in time to 1/1/1970 and post from there

Yeah Landraiders are kind of crappy, why the hell is the gun right behind the side doors? The Preheresy ones from Forge World are designed a bit better. For only $5 AUD more than the normal price for buying a Land Raider here

Well, I think you can actually put the sponsons on the front parts too, but why would you want to limit your forward deployment abilities? It's less fluff and more for play.

You can put them on either side, it's just that they're so rarely put on the front that it looks kind of stupid either way.

gaurdsmantom wrote:Aren't the IG tanks a bad design? (if they were real) as they have really slab sides and don't have any suspension? (yes they have those springs but the tracks wouldn't have any travel) also what are those bomb shaped objects on the front sides?

Technology has much changed in 38,000 years. Who can tell what new advances brought them to this point? Maybe slab sides are optimal for dispersing heat taken from laser and melta fire? Perhaps the bomb-shaped things are heat sinks? You could do a lot to justify much of 40k with Applied Phlebotinum.

Realism does not transfer into 40K too well, cause anything goes...

I'm sure there are 7777 hamsters running on the tracks to make the Land Raider move...

I always thought they deliberately choose antiquated designs to highlight the fall of the imperium from the height of its technology. This makes for great contrast between the imperium and high tech eldar and tau.

Something I'd been playing with recently was buying a load of plasticard and modifying a Land Raider kit for slopped armour sides, and suspension.

Cambak wrote:

I don't think you know what that word means. Please stop posting like this; it's annoying and contributes nothing.

On topic: Yes, Imperial tanks aren't well designed. Big flat panels make for easy armor penetration. Tau and Eldar tanks are far better designed.

Cambak wrote:

No, because the battle cannon would make most of our tanks disappear.

Learn to use the gift of the thread Necro card -properly- before you start tossing it all over the place line a weenie.

I can understand that decent technology takes a hit in the Imperium, compared to some other races, but with 40,000 years experience, sloped armor can't be that difficult. All the Imperial vehicles have sides like the broad side of a barn , for pity's sake! No amount of extra armor you could utilize on a tank chassis is going to make up for large flat surfaces, a perfect target for AP rounds and shaped charges.

I think I'd take my chances as ship's crew in the Navy...

Skinnattittar wrote:Well, I think you can actually put the sponsons on the front parts too, but why would you want to limit your forward deployment abilities? It's less fluff and more for play.

Front sponsons give you an extra few inches of range, so there are gameplay arguments to be made for either-- however, I personally favor the front sponsons because they look better, make more sense, and are more consistent with the old style of LR.

While I prefer the look of Front Mounted, I put mine on the rear so that I don't have to glue the hatches shut. But that's just me.

In all fairness, GW does hate the Imperial Guard, and if ever they were to update anything dramatically, it wouldn't be Leman Russes, but most likely Ogryns.... again.... because I am NOT going to pay $20 for any single model that I am never going to use in the current Codex. So GW will be able to say "Well we updated one of your under appreciated units?! What are you complaining about?!"

What's sad, really, is that there has been a million and one conversion examples and several different Forge World variants that people like. Why when they recast the Russ did they go with essentially the same thing? If anyone know why they did just THAT, I would be a little happier.

Things I would have liked to see even with the same basic current configuration:

Suspension and exposed road wheels (similar to the new Rhino)
Internal track rides
Broader turret (so the commander isn't riding the breech)
Slanted rear track profile (like modern tanks)
Sponsons similar to current generation of (40k) sponsons
Flatter, broader chassis

Skinnattittar wrote:In all fairness, GW does hate the Imperial Guard...

Really? I wouldn't say that. What's your reasoning?

I think Land Raider sponsons should be front-mounted.

That said, almost all GW tanks have design problems if they were RL.

GW doesn't tend to focus on realism. I mean, look at ratios on these models sometimes, especially orks. Those hands are massive compared to everything else!!

The point is that GW is clearly focusing more on having a "look" for each army. They want to maintain a consistent design aesthetic, which sometimes means making something ridiculous. Maybe they experimented with some sloped sides and decided they looked too different from the rest of the army?

While we are complaining about tank design, why can't I actually fit 20 orks models in a standard battlewagon?

The designs are actually explained in the story though.

They lost nearly all of their technology around the Age of Strife. A bit before the Emperor showed up. The Adeptus Mechanicus showed up a bit before he showed up as well and they started seeing the few remains of the technology that had been lost as sacred. To the Adeptus Mechanicus, updating a design and changing it is considered Techno-Heresy. If I remeber correctly changing a design violates the Law of Divine Complexity, which results in an execution. So unless they found a STC containing the improvements to the design, they can't really change it at all. They have to perform chants and such when they even work on machines and they also get punished if they do not do that properly.

So their religion holds the Imperium back from progressing and improving the designs they have managed to scrape together from what humanity had lost. That's why it looks a bit basic because their technology is probably not too far forward from ours now. Maybe 100-200 years away, sure it will definitely be different (We probably won't get Chainswords) but there will probably be similarities. The tanks will kind of be a step back though as the rivets are generally a bad idea, but maybe the rivets cannot be launched around inside or they lack the technology to connect the material together. Or perhaps it strengthens it further. But, I think that they're just an aesthetic choice, there just because it would look more intersting then if they weren't there.

Those sponsons go at the back, so you can shoot your own guys as they get out

loki old fart wrote:Those sponsons go at the back, so you can shoot your own guys as they get out

To get their vitamin L (for Laser!) or vitamin B (for Bolter!).

On a serious note. Does having the sponsons on the front give you an advantage in game. I.E. Better angle when shooting from cover, or less tank showing

It gives the flamer one a little bit more reach. I'm not sure it the sponsons can aim at models directly infront of it though. Kind of funny when it's imobilized, stand in front of it and the Lascannons can do nothing but flail around on the sides

Surely can shoot around corner of terrian, and be 50% obscured