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.

Does anyone have any idea what he's going on about?

BYE

Going back a little bit the Chimera is actually based upon a futuristic tank that the US Military is developing for the Marines. Its called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle, it looks exactly like it, is amfibious (sorry can't spell) and holds about the same number of soldiers.

Would anyone have a good source for finding out the history of IG tank models, by the by? I haven't seen a reliable source for the Chimera and Russ precursor models.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Nuclear Mekanik wrote:21st century main battle tanks can charge at full speed across the roughest terrain on this planet, and intelligent aiming and guidance systems will keep the main gun precisely on target at all times.

Tanks set in the future need to be at least as technologically advanced as our modern day equivalents.

And that is why RL and 40k don't mix.

Quoted because it's oh so true.

You want to incorporate RL into it? Then realize even the lowliest (and quite often least bright) of soldiers can be trained to use a man portable anti-tank rocket/missile in about half an hour, for a combined cost of one hell of a lot less than the cost of one multi-million dollar tank, with a crew that trains for months to be able to operate. With that kind of realism, the guard wouldn't have any tanks. Maybe some light APC's for rapid transport and to protect against light arms fire, and probably not even that. More likely the safest method of getting troops from one point to another would be the drop pods the SM's currently use. Something that comes in fast, and unexpected. Once the military realizes that tanks are too vulnerable and switch to planes, you'll see more anti-aircraft missiles carried by infantry.

dancingcricket wrote:You want to incorporate RL into it? Then realize even the lowliest (and quite often least bright) of soldiers can be trained to use a man portable anti-tank rocket/missile in about half an hour, for a combined cost of one hell of a lot less than the cost of one multi-million dollar tank, with a crew that trains for months to be able to operate. With that kind of realism, the guard wouldn't have any tanks. Maybe some light APC's for rapid transport and to protect against light arms fire, and probably not even that. More likely the safest method of getting troops from one point to another would be the drop pods the SM's currently use. Something that comes in fast, and unexpected. Once the military realizes that tanks are too vulnerable and switch to planes, you'll see more anti-aircraft missiles carried by infantry.

I'd like to say this is the first time I have heard such an audacious and ignorant statement before, but it isn't.... If this were true, then far more M1 Abrams, M4 Bradleys, M113s, Strikers, and many, many more American and allied armored vehicles would have been destroyed in Iraq. The problem you are stating was one that came up during the Six Day War I believe, where Russian anti-tank RPGs were able to destroy, then, the main battle tank of both America and Isreal, this quickly reminded Congress that perhaps listening to the military advisors would be a good idea. Thus the development of the Abrams began, as well as many other nations next generation MBT of the 1970's and 1980's. Plenty of examples of current generation MBTs taking "anti-tank" fire and surviving, thriving, and continuing the fight exist, and not as "exceptions." The current generation of tanks are resoundingly tough.

Good. Now we just need to wait for the next generation of man-portable anti-tank weaponry. And even if it's 1 out of 100 actually manages to stop a tank, it's still cheaper (if brutal) to tell someone to do so.

Why would a Leman Russ have this ability, while the more advanced Eldar, Tau, and Space Marine tanks don't?

I would like tanks to be more mobile as well, but I don't see why it would be exclusive to the Guard.

I wouldn't want to pay more to the point where I could take an extra Tank.

@ Cricket : If you don't want the tank support then you can go and try to fight a war against someone that does, the only thing they have to do is have infantry support (whom they are their to support I'll mind you) and you're screwed, because no matter how well you make your position, those tanks sitting off at 1000m will have no problem blowing you back to the stone age. Seriously, where do you get your information?

@ Saurus : Because Eldar tanks fly, Tau are not technically technologically superior, just not burdened by their faith agaisnt technology, and their tanks fly, Marine tanks wouldn't get it because they are all lighter than the Russ. The Russ basically gets the ability because it is so freakin' huge! Seriously, there are only two tanks bigger than the Leman Russ, not including Apoc. and that is the Land Raider which has Power of the Machine Spirit and the Necron Monolith, which I think can fire all its weapons anyways.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Does anyone have any idea what he's going on about?

BYE

I'm guessing he really, really likes LRTs.


...


You can't have ALL of the tricks tacked onto a ubiquitous pie-server. What about people who don't want to take Russes at all? Some people just take Basilisks. Like I said, your armour is probably going to get cheaper, so what does it matter if the armour values stay basically the same? It's also very unlikely they'll be able to split their fire however they want.

You can't just say that Tau aren't technologically superior because that's what you really, really want, either. Gunline warfare never got anyone anywhere; we lost millions of people proving that to ourselves. Tank crews pretty much have to be insane in the first place, and as pointed out, in real life it's pretty easy to damage/immobilise/trap/hidefrom a tank. Maybe not so much modern tanks, but LRTs aren't based on modern tanks, are they?
They just need to be cheaper, if you insist on their practicality. But tracked tanks generally aren't practical. They're cool and that's about it.

The Iraq example is low. Yeah, poorly armed militia can't cope with the pinnacle of armoured warfare. Great Point.

Regarding the 'precursor' models, I believe the LRT was one of, if not THE, first plastic kits that GW did. They didn't even design it, IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/

http://www.militaria.cz/cz/detail-476

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT - go down to variations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29

And several friends in the army who decided to respecialize out of armor after they realized what was possible.

Now, I'm not saying that it's going to happen each and every time someone does try to take out one of those tanks with such devices. But for the cost, it's much more economic to send out a bunch of brave young patriots out there to try their luck. And again, much cheaper than the $4.35 Million the tanks costs. Let's see, I'm finding articles indicating that the RPG-29 launcher can be found for around 500, and the missile for around 300 dollars. And the launcher can be used multiple times (providing you're alive to shoot it again). Now, if you assume that each person is going to get one shot before circumstances make it impossible for them to get off a second, or $800 per attempt, thats 5437 attempts for the cost of the tank. Bet it wont take that many.

Also,

I have heard similiar arguements against helicopters, but it's all BS and boils down to nerves. Yes, I've met some tankers who doubted the veracity of tanks in the future against equally armed foes, same things from helicopter pilots. But that is what infantry support. Ask any infantrymen what two things they like to see arriving to a firefight or protracted battle and they will tell you; armor and air support. Armor and Air given proper infantry support has little to worry about being knocked out by enemy infantry fire. Remember, tanks and helos can plink of rounds at point targets at over 1000m, infantry is rather limited to point targets at up to 500m, with some weapons having extended range to 1000-1500m, yes, but once you put infantry down pressuring them, their odds of success are very nill, as proven but the vast success of armor over the ages.

If we use the logic that Cricket proposes, than the Germans should have won the armor war, which they didn't, the North Koreans would have won the tactical war, which they didn't, the Vietnamese should have won the tactical war, which they didn't, the Somalians would have won the tactical war, which they didn't, and the Iraqi's should be butt raping us on the tactical front, BUT THEY AREN'T! You will always meet people who are dishearened by their branch choice, there are plenty of infantrymen who think that the future will replace them with light tanks and robots, odds are though, that future is far far off. It is just opinion and nerves. Being a tanker is scary work, if your tank goes up, odds are, you will too, it doesn't feel as safe as you'd think to hear a dozen RPG-29 rounds bouncing off your hull with no effect, waiting for that one lucky shot to peal you open (which hasn't happened yet, I'll remind you, only one Abrams tank has been destroyed by enemy fire, and that was just because the fuel tank was penetrated and touched off, and even then, it was actually destroyed beyond recovery by American fire to prevent it from being captured if the area could not be held). So far, not a single Abrams has been knocked out WWII style in history by almost any weapon, considering the perhaps thousands of combined rounds and IED choices, that is saying a lot.

An example I have, which included videos and pictures and the statements of the person who was there to see it, not just third hand word of mouth, is of an Abrams that was immobalised and could not be safely moved being destroyed by Americans so that it would not be captured taking AT4 rounds dead on. The AT4 can penetrate 20inches of armor grade steel, yet the Abrams shrugged it off, and it doesn't have a hull over 20inches thick! Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

But, we shouldn't be getting into this arguement here. Proposed Rules is not the forum for a bunch of novices to be debating the future of armored warfare, we are here to try and fix the Russ.

I still say a bump up in armor and/or an allowance to fire all its weapons on the move. Depending on how this is achieved, I don't think a points cost increased is necessarily required. DD likes to make everything cheap so he can take a dozen of them or something, but not all of us, obviously, prefer to do that, or can afford to buy a dozen tanks just to make thier Russ force useable. I would actually like to see forces and battles become cheaper, points value wise, and allow more flexibility in the FOC so armies can have more variety in battle less than a thousand points (which are my favorite battles because it actually matters what you take and how you use them).

dancingcricket wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/

http://www.militaria.cz/cz/detail-476

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT - go down to variations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29

And several friends in the army who decided to respecialize out of armor after they realized what was possible.

Now, I'm not saying that it's going to happen each and every time someone does try to take out one of those tanks with such devices. But for the cost, it's much more economic to send out a bunch of brave young patriots out there to try their luck. And again, much cheaper than the $4.35 Million the tanks costs. Let's see, I'm finding articles indicating that the RPG-29 launcher can be found for around 500, and the missile for around 300 dollars. And the launcher can be used multiple times (providing you're alive to shoot it again). Now, if you assume that each person is going to get one shot before circumstances make it impossible for them to get off a second, or $800 per attempt, thats 5437 attempts for the cost of the tank. Bet it wont take that many.

Yes, this is why the enemies of the USA, with all their cheap RPG's have taken out sooooo many of our Abrams. The total Abrams taken out with an RPG is around two. We've lost more Abrams to friendly fire than to RPGs. The simple reason is that tanks are designed to deny the enemy the opportunity to make such an attack. Combine that with systems designed for defending against such RPGs and the general unreliability of the cheaper RPG to properly detonate and it becomes a relatively limited circumstance. The 120mm cannon on an Abrams struggles to bust its own armor, RPGs are greater risk to the non-battle tank vehicles.

In real life, by volume of weapons the tank is safe from 90+% of everything on the field, as opposed to the infantry man who is vulnerable to 100% of weapons on a battlefield. Tanks are not invulnerable but they are alot safer. Fewer than 1% of all Abrams have been destroyed or seriously damaged ever as opposed to the 3% mortatlity and 20% casualty rate we've seen in recent years. Obviously the tank is doing something right despite RPGs and improvised explosives.

And that is why going from totally exposed ground-pounders to armored LAVs is a huge boost for ordinary infantry.

There are disadvantages to being all armored up in LAVs, traversing certain terrain becomes a big issue and while high mobility is a big advantage it can slow down your deployment to a theater of war to have so many vehicles. You trade off cutting through the forests for taking the long way around. And some one up there in the command decides, do we send 200 men or 30 men with their APCs.

All true. But then there are Bradley's for very rough terrain.

... all of this is great but wasn't this ment to be a debate about giving IG Russes a skill to move and shoot all their guns?

any way another way of getting what you wanted would be give them a similar upgraded to the Tau and they count as fast vehicals for shooting

Well, if all the other codexes get updates fast, and I'm talking within the next 2 years, to include more and better anti-tank, then, and only then am I personally ok with making the tanks better at moving and shooting. Improve the tanks anymore than they already are, and you're going to start seeing a lot of more of them, and a lot of armies have problems with armored company as is.

Granted, it's going to be pricey, but 3 russ' for each heavy slot, up to 9 in a standard game. Don't have the codex handy, but I'm pretty sure the main gun is nasty enough that it wipes out most things that you put it's template over. Having to run through that to have a chance to take them out (meaning your not getting cover saves) is bad enough. Having to do that while the tanks are actively trying to move away from you, and/or are able to shoot all their other weaponry in addition to the ordnance gun, would be very unbalancing.

Tanks are hard to knock out? Maybe, they are tougher in 5th Edition than they were in 4th, but that's not saying much, in 4th armor plating was replaced with warm butter, in 5th, they put that butter in the fridge for a while first. Tanks are supposed to be annoying to take out, hence all that armor and such. I am not for there being 9 Russes in a 1850pt game (they would take up pretty much the entire army), or even 6 in a 1500pt game, or more than 3! One Squadron of three Russes, of all varieties, per FOS slot and limited to one per army (Apoc exception obviously) seems plenty reasonable to me, as long as all three are allowed to remain independent of eachother. Perhaps in Apoc they should stay withing 24" of eachother or something, but unit coherency for something like a TANK! is slowed, straightup.

tanks hard to kill LAUGHING OUT LOUD ... sorry but in CC you attack the rear armour if you are str4 or have any grenades you can kill 90% of vehicals (or at the very least tear off all its guns)
.... for example i charged a russ BT with striking scorpoins i hand intended to kill it with the exarche's Claw but since i had 5 other guys with him i thought i'd give them ago ... since the tank hadn't move (so he could shoot every thing) i automaticly hit him rolling to pen i needed 6's out of the 20 hits (thats why i love SS's)that got me 4 glances and manged to get one more 6 taking out the cannon (+ lots of shaken) ... exarch just imobilised it (killed it next turn since it couldn't move away)


... one thing i've never understood is why they don't get to shoot things like flamers in CC or randomly fire off the HB side sponsons (BS1)

Vehicles don't get to shoot those things because they've already had a chance to fire in the shooting phase. From a real world point of view all three phases are occuring simultaneously, but are broken down for game logistics, and thus all three turns collectively represent a finite amount of time over which a heavy bolter could only fire so much. An example is, even though your Cadians move 6" than shoot and those two things occur in different phases, together they collectively represent a cadian firing on the move. Now extrapolate that same representative aspect to the fact that even though you play, your turn than your opponents turn, that complete set of turns represents things that were happenning at the same time. Thus if a heavy bolter fires at a rate of 3600 Rnd/min and thats represnted by Heavy 3, the amount of out of game time that passes does not change the fact that in game over those two turns only 10 seconds went by. In other words a Heavy Bolters don't have a fire fast and fire even faster switch.

no i agree all that ... but the game is an abstraction by the same reasoning the damage they they take could be explained as them being in the wrong place as the tank shoots at a distant squad... i did'nt mean they got to fire twice just get shoot any thing they hadn't already (same for walkers) ... mainly i don't think assualting a tank should be risk free

may be just remove that dam stupid rule about attacking the tanks rear armour in cc

I was just justifying the rationale GW probably used. That and the fact that with GW every battle end in melee.

I really think that sort of thing should be an advantage of defensive weapons. You could justify it by the fact that as they close in for the assault there is an increased likely hood they get hit by the hail of bullets. Making it defensive vs all other weapons is just to keep it balanced; you could say that the less wieldly weapons can be brought to bare as easily.

Tri wrote:tanks hard to kill LAUGHING OUT LOUD ...

If the opponent is foolish and doesn't move the Tank, that's his fault.

And the Guard have AV11 rear on Demolishers, to avoid almost all of this nonsense. If I move the Demolisher 6", only half of the Exarch attacks hit, while the regular guys do nothing. Those odds are pretty good.

and if you move you lose half your guns ... his leman russ battle tank had just taken out my anti tank squad, he was just unlucky they were in range

@ Aka : That "theory" has been used before to try and justify how GW does things, but it just doesn't work that way. WH40k is a table top game, that is it, just a table top game, its grounding in reality of how battles occur is totally false, if it were, then assaults wouldn't occur pretty much ever. There is a reason the HtH assault charfe died out almost a hundred years ago; the invention of the troop portable automatic weapon. It was buried even deeper when automatic weapons became easily single man portable. Last time I checked, these weapons still exist in WH40k, so why do HtH assaults occur? Because the game has been fractioned up into segments for it to be possible.

YES! I know! HtH combat does occur, on occasion, under extremely specific situations, in which two opponents are in very close proximity in which their firearm's effectiveness is reduced to a point in which hand-to-hand combat becomes more practical. When does this occur you ask? In such places as heavily wooded/heavy undergrowth areas and urban settings where your enemy may be only a few feet away but you can not find their specific location.

So why is 40k the way it is? Because that is what sells models and brings in money.

Tri wrote:tanks hard to kill LAUGHING OUT LOUD ... sorry but in CC you attack the rear armour if you are str4 or have any grenades you can kill 90% of vehicals (or at the very least tear off all its guns)

Yeah, you "can" kill it. Terminators can be killed by grots. That doesn't mean they're not hard to kill.

Here's my quick solution for tanks firing:
A non-fast vehicle can fire all of it's weapons if it moves 6" or less, and one weapon if it moves over that.
A fast vehicle can fire all of it's weapons if it moves 12" or less.
Walkers can fire all their weapons if they don't run.
Ordinance weapons can only be fired if no other weapon on the tank is fired, and they cannot be fired by a vehicle that has moved over 6"
Units inside a transport may fire their weapons if a non-fast transport moves 6" or less, or if a fast transport moves 12" or less.
Transported units count as moving if the vehicle moved at all, and must utilize firing points/open topped vehicles as normal.

(I got rid of the main/defensive thing entirely, as it always seemed unnecessary to me.)

Tri wrote:and if you move you lose half your guns ...

You keep the Ordnance shot that matters.

I think there needs to be some way of moving and shooting the main cannon, otherwise no one will ever move a battle tank. I think there are two fair options, designate LR's as lumbering or give them something like the older version of the power of the machine spirit, where you fire at a reduced BS.