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.

H.M.B.C. wrote:

BrookM wrote:The Chimera sponsons house the engines, they are not hollow floatation devices.

Whilst that may be the case according to GW/FW (it was shown as such in Imperial Armour at least) I prefer to think, and believe makes more sense, that they are floatation sponsons given the specifically amphibious nature of the Chimera. Although GW doing smaller ones would seem to put paid to that.

BOY!

Come to think of it, those are rather undynamic in regards to flow of the water and all that. Besides, armoured vehicles that are amphibious don't need hollowed out spaces to keep it afloat. Just look at the BMP series and the AAV.

BrookM wrote:Come to think of it, those are rather undynamic in regards to flow of the water and all that. Besides, armoured vehicles that are amphibious don't need hollowed out spaces to keep it afloat. Just look at the BMP series and the AAV.

Just because they don't need it doesn't mean it can't be shown on a model... especially when GW like to give their IG tanks a WWI/WWII aesthetic. Early amphibious tanks had external floats, so I'm happy with 'armoured' floats on the Chimera. But in short, boxiness above the tracks is all that's required such as with the M551. But we digress.

BOY!

BrookM wrote:Tanks are boxy

No, tanks are angry houses

If the Chimera's going to be "Amphibious", then it's going to need a wash plate or a prow-shaped forward hull.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the Chimera's going to be "Amphibious", then it's going to need a wash plate or a prow-shaped forward hull.

BMP's don't have them.

Yeah amphibious tanks just need a powerful enough engine to make it go in the water.

BrookM wrote:Tanks are boxy

Not that boxy. They also don't drag on the ground, because that creates immense problems when clearing inclines (which is obvious). Most modern tanks attempt to slope all sides, and create a fairly even slope on the front as to avoid bullet traps and allow for deflected shots to fly clean. The chimeras track design is unbelievable awful, but games workshop hasn't figured out what tank tracks look like yet (hint, shocks exist), so thats no surprise. The rest of the tank isn't that bad, though the turret needs to be more sloped if it wants to look semi capable of deflecting shots. The side track segments are the problem for both the leman russ and the chimera. They are too short, too high, and give no shock absorption. Every bump goes right into the frame of the vehicle, which would destroy it within hours of use.

Here are some tanks. Look at the track and turret designs. Note how the turrets are as short and sloped as is possible.

BrookM wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the Chimera's going to be "Amphibious", then it's going to need a wash plate or a prow-shaped forward hull.

BMP's don't have them.

BMPs have an integrated wash plate / prow as the frontal armor.

The Chimera is more like a M113, and would swamp due to trying to submarine under any high waves / wash.
____

ShumaGorath wrote:The chimeras track design is unbelievable awful, but games workshop hasn't figured out what tank tracks look like yet (hint, shocks exist), so thats no surprise.

The side track segments are the problem for both the leman russ and the chimera. They are too short, too high, and give no shock absorption. Every bump goes right into the frame of the vehicle, which would destroy it within hours of use.

GW knows what tank tracks look like - look at the current Rhino and Baneblade.

The Leman Russ came first and is styled after a British WW1 tank. Given that those tanks moved at walking speed, suspension wasn't a major concern. The Chimera basically follows the Russ for family purposes. But agreed that the track elements could be much wider and lower on the hull. Thing is, I'm not sure how much it would still look like a Russ.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Leman Russ came first and is styled after a British WW1 tank. Given that those tanks moved at walking speed, suspension wasn't a major concern.

Tell that to the guys inside! WWI tanks were not pleasant things to drive.

BYE

I'm not sure how much it would still look like a Russ.

Honestly, the less it looks like a russ the happier I will be. I would fully support a total retcon. I don't care about all the art of the ugly old box, I can pretend it didn't always look that way.

So you're hoping for a total change, like the how the Land Raider was totally redone?

I can't say that I blame you.

1. I like my russes, but I invite Jess Goodwin to reinvent them.

2. I, for one, would like to welcome Miss Dita von Teese to Dakka. (lolz)

H.B.M.C. wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Leman Russ came first and is styled after a British WW1 tank. Given that those tanks moved at walking speed, suspension wasn't a major concern.

Tell that to the guys inside! WWI tanks were not pleasant things to drive.

BYE

Believe him. He was there.

The internal walls inside the hull would flake away in hot shards whenever the tank took fire. We had to... uhh... I mean the people who were alive at the time had to wear masks with chainmail links to cover their faces in order to stop suffering facial damage.

Turning the tank consisted in pulling several levers in different directions, not simply turning a wheel or whatever you kids use today to drive your tanks to the 'shopping mall' and 'skate park'. It was hot and noisy and in some cases poisonous.

Not fun.

I suspect that given Russes are based on Little Willie tanks (and their successors) that their control mechanisms and internal conditions would be roughly analogous.

BYE

You had a lever for each track, it wasn't until those pesky Germans came along with their blitzing that tanks got proper steering wheels. They also implemented power steering for tanks, something the Imperium has no doubt forgotten as well along with welding and some other things.

I, as "pesky" german would accept any recut / updated to WWII russ anyday.

get that toy-design out of 40k


But if we really get this *move 6", decide to shoot or not, move eiter 6" or 1d6" * nonsense for the russ, it doesn't matter anymore
how anyone explains the steering method of IG tanks.

I meant no offence with my last post, I love ze Germans obviously, great country for vacation and desserts. I just don't love them as much as the English.

BrookM wrote:I meant no offence with my last post, I love ze Germans obviously, great country for vacation and desserts. I just don't love them as much as the English.

We're not offended

And the english may need youre love more.

But GW still sells the "old" IG kits and i can't see any recut appearing before summer.

Last thing i've heard was 1 st wave may, 1.5 wave july/august.

Redesigning a kit can't be done that easily, plus GW needs to do the whole bean counting and the hefty question of "is it really worth it to re-cut those kits or should we crank out more marine stuff?"

With 21 "new tanks" (or variants) plus a new type of vehicle (valkyrie) and a new superheavy, the decision is already made.

=>Crank out more Guard stuff.

GW waited to release the next 40k codex. Supports also the orks (stompa) and will not redo DA/BA/BT/CSM in the near future.

A lonely SW dex isn't that "focused on marines" attitude.

GW made a leap of faith to develop the Stompa instead of the Warhound, so there's a little love for non-Imperial stuff.

They claim that the Stompa took them 2,5 years to develop, so I wouldn't call that a leap of faith.