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.

They're not viable. Not for all the obvious problems of the Space Marine style dreadnaught (tiny legs, hugs profile, ammo limits and how the hell does that thing manage to punch anything?) Those things can be solved by theorising a more plausible, albeit far less cool dreadnaught.

No the problem with the dreadnaught is that it doesn't meet any battlefield role. Infantry are adaptable, surprisingly hard to kill, and with increasing weapons tech they are capable of packing a lot of firepower. But infantry are slow, because when it comes to moving over open ground legs suck compared to wheeled vehicles.

So why you'd take the battlefield role of a tank and keep all the problems of the tank while adding a higher profile and crap system of mobility is beyond me. Well actually, if you were a high tech order of battlemonks and wanted a fallen brother to march into battle once again it makes sense. But if you were worrying about resource allocation and combat effectiveness then it makes no damn sense at all.

No, but very little in the GW universe actually is.

Dreadnoughts, Titans and Superheavy Tanks exist for one reason only, the rule of cool. Nowt wrong with that but even assuming you could get any of them to work in real life they would be ineffective and vunerable in a battlefield situation.

What's wrong with Superheavy tanks? If not practical for urban warfare, what's wrong with epic tanks?

sA

I vote yes, but on a scale that it really approaches power armor or a powered suit. I think the warfare of tommorrow will be increasingly asymmetrical, and the citizens of modern western nations are more and more reluctant to accept casualties. I can see a man sized powered suit, perhaps less like a metal exoskeleton, but more like a thick plastic covering, that is "smart". Perhaps something that can provide instant trauma care or sensor arrays of some kind.

smiling Assassin wrote:What's wrong with Superheavy tanks? If not practical for urban warfare, what's wrong with epic tanks?

sA

Too heavy for normal roads and bridges, too large for rail transport.

Maintenance problems due to excessive wait, made worse by the huge amount of marching over they would have to do because they can't go on a rail car or a tank transporter.

Big, juicy target, can be knocked out by a single lucky hit, unlike the same resources dispersed into several smaller vehicles.

Lots of the weapons on a Baneblade wouldn't actually work because there isn't room inside for the turret assemblies and so on. (Though that's true of a lot of 40K vehicles.)

I rather like the 2nd edition Dreadnought design, and recently I've come to believe that the blocky design is a bulked up version of the original Rogue Trader design.

I recall the Dreadnought design rules for Rogue Trader, in one of the extra manuals, mentioned that Dreadnoughts were pretty high-tech originally, able to mount things like jump-jets, power fields, suspensors, and powered by things like crystallic fusion piles. Only Orks, being technologically opportunistic and crude would resort to Dreadnoughts made of metal and driven using manual controls.

Something I've like to see is more of something I saw in an ancient White Dwarf featuring the Golden Demon awards, with a metal Space Wolf Dreadnought converted so that instead of an articulated arm ending in a claw, it ended in a missile pod; basically a gun pod at the end of an articulated arm instead of just a gun pod. If anyone has ever seen the original plastic Epic Space Marine Dreadnought they'll know what I'm talking about. Also, insaniak has a project thread (I think) where he has a scaled up version either being built or finished.

Back on topic though, tracks are incredibly vulnerable, so why not go with legs, particularly if you can over-come the stabilization problems? I like the way that the modern Space Marine Dreadnought (the Ironclad not so much, but the greaves are good because they're blocky like the rest of the Dreadnought armour cladding, unlike the curved armour on the regular Dreadnought) is short and stumpy rather than lithe and graceful. A Mortis Pattern, particularly as an Anti-Aircraft configuration seems particularly useful if the fighting in Grozny and whatnot indicates the usefulness of a Dreadnought-like machine in an urban environment.

As a War Studies student, I actually ran a project on this area a while back.

Basically, the dreadnought design as depicted would not work. With the sheer weight and bulk of the central body on those tiny little feet, it wouldn't be able to distribute it's mass enough to even move really, not to mention the abysmal balance as several other people pointed out. It wouldn't be able to walk up steep hills, as if it tried, it would fall over backwards and roll down.(amusing mental image). Whilst trying to walk up a gentle hill even, simply picking up one foot would unbalance it enough that it would fall over. And once fallen over, it would be unable to pick itself back up.
Then when you consider things like combat efficiency, it fails there too.
The combat weapon requires you to be close enough to hit the target, which is unlikely with the current technological level of warfare. And any gun with enough power to inflict a serious dent on enemy armour would have so much recoil, the thing would make itself fall over backwards. Tehe amount of energy involved in making it move woukld mean it would need to be re-charged/fueled very regularly, and it would be unable to accommadate battlefield terrain. It would sink into mud in places like russia, be unable to get a grip on sand in the desert, and so on.

In short, the classic Dread design is never gonna happen.

However, the concept of mechas does have a fair bit of worth. There are several high tech weapons design and development companies working on them as we speak. Prototype mechas, and exoskeletons have already been produced.
Large scale mechas currently seem to be unfeasible though, as current robotic technology is incapable of making an efficient, combat worthy mecha that you would operate using a control board whilst sitting down. So no Mech Commander just yet. The technology is just out of reach of what is currently available. The robots cannot move efficiently, and like the dreadnought concept, are not capable of making balanced movement that can adapt to different terrain and inclines.

However, ones that function by strapping a human into the middle, and then having the robot/machinery's motions mimic the humans do work. These can be split roughly into two types, mini-mechas, and armoured exoskeletons.
The mini-mechas look like something out of Evangelion, without the refined lines. I recall seeing someone that had mounted a pair of flamethrowers on one of these, but like the dreadnought concept, the recoil of heavy weaponry was too great for them to take without overbalancing. The robots size was such that when the gun fired, and the robot began overbalancing, where a human would have been able to catch their balance and steady themselves, because the human had to make the motion, and the mecha mimic it, the machinery couldn't move swiftly enough to stop itself from toppling. They had some success by making it stand still, and brace itself for the recoil(so it didn;t fall over), but as that would reduce it to being a big fat target for anti-armour weaponry, it was discarded as a viable option. Not only that, the mecha itself required so much power, it would be unable to operate for any serious length of time.

Armoured exoskeletons have had the most success. A combat-feasible one has actually been created. Basically, you strap yourself into it from the front. It possesses a metal spine, and metal rods that go down the back of your arms and legs(it actually has kind of 'shoe' you slip your feet into). It's not all over, think of it as a stickman, it just has a single metal length for each limb that goes down the back of that limb.
The exoskeleton enhances your physical traits tremendously, and makes you capable of running great distances, and carrying large loads. It's durable, light, and has enough battery capacity to last for a good 24 hours or so before needing a recharge. Not only that, it folds up in a very compact fashion so you can slip it into a backpack. It has several swivels on the joints so that it can move in any way a human can, and doesn't restrict the wearers movement. It's made of hardy materials, so as to survive wear and tear, and battle damage.
The flaws it has is that it DOES only last for 24 horus or so, and it useless after that, it's quite expensive to produce, and it provides no additional armour or firepower for the wearer.
But on the plus side, it makes you capable of punching through a brick wall, running endlessly without getting tired, and carrying a massive backpack.

The US Defence department is very interested in this design, and is sponsoring it's further development. Theoretically, the next step of the design would be something like power armour, that is to say, and all over exoskeleton.

The problem with expensive power armour is that it will most likely still be penetrated by 50 cal or heavier but still man portable weapons. True it would make the AK redundant but most casualties come from IEDs and booby traps anyways instead of actual combat deaths.

The main problem with a dreadnought and any armoured vehicle of any size is that it is terribly vulnerable to Aircraft. The Iraq War proved this as most Iraq tank deaths were due to tank killing aircraft like the A10 and others. The armour just stuck out like a lightbulb when viewed in thermal, and it couldn' take effective cover like infantry can and isn't fast enough to evade an airplane. Pretty much without air superiority armour of any kind is a no go.

I quote John Rambo:

"We were taught that the MIND is the best weapon."-Rambo

"Times change."-Slimy Beaurocrat

"....For some people."-Rambo

If we can make real life a Space Marine Rhino, hell yes we can make a real life Dread

For a Dread to even stand up (assuming they are over 3 meters tall), it would require legs that are either 4-5 times bigger than the linear scale or extremely strong material (with more mass than the rest of the body).

who really cares??? its rad!!!!! its stompy and big with guns and stuff.....

JohnHwangDD wrote:Like a RX-75 Guntank?

that is EXACTLY what I was thinking of


you sir are telepathic

Ultrafool wrote:If we can make real life a Space Marine Rhino, hell yes we can make a real life Dread

No.

A Rhino isn't an abstract idea AT ALL. They were based off this tank, used in 'Nam:



The M113. A dreadnought has, so far, no base in reality.

sA

TRUE STORY -

Exoskeletons Are Coming


Via PhysOrg.com:

Jack Obusek, a former colonel now with the Army’s Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center in the Boston suburb of Natick, foresees robot-suited soldiers unloading heavy ammunition boxes from helicopters, lugging hundreds of pounds of gear over rough terrain or even relying on the suit’s strength-enhancing capabilities to make repairs to tanks that break down in inconvenient locations.

Sarcos’ Jacobsen envisions factory workers someday using the technology to perform manual labor more easily, and firefighters more quickly carrying heavy gear up stairwells of burning buildings. Disabled people also may find uses for the technology, he said.

“We see the value being realized when these suits can be built in great numbers for both military and commercial uses, and they start coming down in cost to within the range of the price of a small car,” said Jacobsen. He declined to estimate how much the suit might cost in mass production.

But cost isn’t the only obstacle. For example, developers eventually hope to lengthen the suit’s backpack battery’s life and tinker with the suit’s design to use less energy. Meanwhile, the suit can draw power from a generator, a tank or helicopter. And there are gas engines that, while noisy, small enough to fit into the suit’s backpack

Lol, if power armour comes into being it will only make the army less effecient. Right now the average trooper carries something like 26000 dollars in gear. An iraq militant has roughly 200-500 dollars worth of gear on them. If a gang of 100 iraqi militants kills two US soldiers its a net win for the militants. That will only go up if they start wearing suits that cost tens of thousands of dollars each.

Well, the USA is much richer than Iraq, so perhaps monetary value of the equipment and training is not so different between the two.

Kilkrazy wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:What's wrong with Superheavy tanks? If not practical for urban warfare, what's wrong with epic tanks?

sA

Too heavy for normal roads and bridges, too large for rail transport.

Maintenance problems due to excessive wait, made worse by the huge amount of marching over they would have to do because they can't go on a rail car or a tank transporter.

Big, juicy target, can be knocked out by a single lucky hit, unlike the same resources dispersed into several smaller vehicles.

Lots of the weapons on a Baneblade wouldn't actually work because there isn't room inside for the turret assemblies and so on. (Though that's true of a lot of 40K vehicles.)

Exactly. They would be useless on so many surfaces. Its also worth remembering that the weight of a vehicle rises exponentially with its size. In terms of size it many only be about 4 x the Size of a Russ but probably weighs about 10 x as much. Imagine that on ice, mud, soft earth or sand. For the same reason they would be criminally fuel inefficient and a bugger to maintain.

Not to mention that moving them quietly and concealing them would be virtually impossible. Meaning using super heavies in any kind of surprise offensive would be out of the question. They would in all likelihood be taken out from the air long before they saw action. In Normandy for example the Germans found it almost impossible to move heavy tanks by day as they stood out and were taken out by aircraft. Now imagine this with a tank 4X that size!

Well, the USA is much richer than Iraq, so perhaps monetary value of the equipment and training is not so different between the two.

That wasn't even including training, if you do that it ends up in the hundreds of thousands. And regular militants have an incredibly low training cost. As the ones in Afghanistan are mostly tribesmen who have AKs. The advanced stuff starts with mortars and the ocassional anti air rocket.

That is what *real* WMDs are for. A couple of MOABs does a good job at evening things out in favor of the good guys.