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.

What are modern tanks made of? Theoretical ceramic composite alloys (blah blah, etc.) Basically, the armour is slabs of multiple sheets of different kinds of materials bonded into a ply.

How are they assembled into the hull of the tank? I don't know, but it isn't with rivets. Maybe they are cemented together with Araldite.

Kilkrazy wrote:What are modern tanks made of? Theoretical ceramic composite alloys (blah blah, etc.)

I don't think modern tanks use ceramic alloys, but rather layers of ceramic, metal, and plastic parts to create a single piece of armour. At least that's what my Google-fu came up with.

I may be wrong, but afaik we don't have the technology to make a ceramic composite substance like 'ceramite' the way it's described in 40k. This stuff is supposed to be stronger than titanium, lighter than aluminium and more thermally resistant than ceramics. That's a pretty tall order.

This being said, I think we both agree: in the future they use glue!

DoW

Orkeosaurus wrote:Space Marines never have bawls at any rate.

Or so I hear from people on the internet.

Actually one of the lesser known augmentation surgeries Marines undergo is the addition of a second pair of balls. It produces poison. It's the reason they can't reproduce sexually.

haha virgin marines

BAN wrote:haha virgin marines

And this is relevant... how?

Obvious teen is obvious.


I maintain my stance that that rivets are there mainly to make the vehicle look moar Grimdark. Though Kilkrazy makes a pretty valid point - I would imagine that most Imperial Tanks have some degree of alternating layers of Ceramite and Plasteel plating to better absorb heat, as well as offer conventional protection.

It would be more straight forward to do single piece castings to create turrets and hulls. Variants of sherman used sold cast turrets and hulls. Some used composites, front hull was cast, the rear welded. The have their pros and cons. The cast hulls are stronger but tend not to be as square inside, welded hulls are whatever shape you want them to be but tend to be weaker and burst around weld points. Riveted armour is easily the worst. If it's anything like 20th century vehicles the armour will be thin, rivets don't go though very thick armour only thin - think no more than half an inch on most WW1 and inter-war vehicles. A lucky rifle round can go through and shells cause it to burst with the rivets breaking off and flying around inside. Not at all good news.

Modern vehicles use a variety of thing, British and American tanks use Chobham armour for which the construction is secret, but it's sounds like a sort of metal honeycomb mixed with ceramic tiles. Simply the old idea of welding/bolting metal pieces together doesn't apply to this composite materials.

Why do GW tanks have rivets? Because it's grimdark as many have pointed out. It reflects that whole "backward technology" schtick the Imperium have. The Space Marines obviously have much better equipment. I don't see why the Imperial Guard tanks aren't simply WW1 style boiler plate even if it isn't reflected at all on game terms. I mean their tanks have no suspension do they? The tracks run directly against the hull so I bet they feel every little bump they drive over. At least the Marines appear to have suspension in their Rhinos.

Rivets are just more fun to do and you can shoot people with them.

Kogwar wrote:Rivets are just more fun to do and you can shoot people with them.

Or spiders! (that might have been a nail gun though... rivet guns are biggerized perhaps?)

Hate that movie...

DoW

Rivets went away because they are an inferior way to join metal to welding. In armor terms they're also bad because they're ready made shrapnel. Tanks have enough problems without having to worry about their own rivets popping free and turning into missiles inside their tank.

I suppose their are some possibilities. Imp vehicles could employ a form of Chobham armor. They have a base under layer with studs to which all the different layers are attached and then the stud heads are flattened out rivet style to hold it together. Prevents the rivets from shredding the crew but its still a very sub-optimal way to hold on armor.

I dunno, I like the idea that they rivets are just there to hold the pieces together until the joining compounds set and they don't waste the effort grinding them off. I could also swear I've heard off hand references to welding things back together somewhere, I think in a Cain book.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It would be more straight forward to do single piece castings to create turrets and hulls. Variants of sherman used sold cast turrets and hulls. Some used composites, front hull was cast, the rear welded. The have their pros and cons. The cast hulls are stronger but tend not to be as square inside, welded hulls are whatever shape you want them to be but tend to be weaker and burst around weld points. Riveted armour is easily the worst. If it's anything like 20th century vehicles the armour will be thin, rivets don't go though very thick armour only thin - think no more than half an inch on most WW1 and inter-war vehicles. A lucky rifle round can go through and shells cause it to burst with the rivets breaking off and flying around inside. Not at all good news.

Cast materials are not stronger. welds are just as strong if not stronger that the base material if you can weld properly that is.

Tyyr wrote:I could also swear I've heard off hand references to welding things back together somewhere, I think in a Cain book.

You did. Plus, it's a known fact that the Guard -do- employ plasma cutters. I think the rivets are just there to (aside from look Grimdark) hold on an outer armour layer, and any tie-down spots on the tank for extra gear while they're welding. And then they just leave them on there. Unless we're talking really low-grade tech levels on a world, then they might actually just use huge rivets to put the tank together.

My take is that riveting is faster and fewer resources are needed to make them that having a whole assembly line of welders,

El Cacique wrote:My take is that riveting is faster and fewer resources are needed to make them that having a whole assembly line of welders,

Except for the part where it isn't faster, and now you're spending metal on tank plating AND making rivets to hold it all together.

metallifan wrote:

El Cacique wrote:My take is that riveting is faster and fewer resources are needed to make them that having a whole assembly line of welders,

Except for the part where it isn't faster, and now you're spending metal on tank plating AND making rivets to hold it all together.

Faster from the labor pool point, to hammer in a rivet takes less skill than to put a weld. Also all the fluff where they forgot all pass tech about better technical manufacturing methods.

Earlier in this thread, someone else thought it was faster too - till it was pointed out that naval yards in the second world war switched to welding from rivets and noticed a HUGE production increase.

So no. It isn't faster. You can cover two or three times the joining distance with welding in the same time that it would take to put in one rivet. Lobotomized Servitors kind of negate the issue of skill, don't you think?

I like the 'tacked holding and never bother removing' theory. It could an aethestic thing, some way of placating the Machine Spirit.

Although why a Machine Spirit is pleased with decorative rivets, I'm not sure. It can't be more illogical than burning incense and scented oils, though.

Morgrim wrote:I like the 'tacked holding and never bother removing' theory. It could an aethestic thing, some way of placating the Machine Spirit.

Although why a Machine Spirit is pleased with decorative rivets, I'm not sure. It can't be more illogical than burning incense and scented oils, though.

Because the Machine Spirit is SUPAHGRIMDARKEMPRAH-HELPING

They're not rivets. They're really, really tiny skulls.

solkan wrote:They're not rivets. They're really, really tiny skulls.

Of course! That explains everything, being that it's far more GRIMDARK!

solkan wrote:They're not rivets. They're really, really tiny skulls.

/thread

Seriously though I love it. Time to bust out the bone paint and get to work.

n0t_u wrote:

Lord of battles wrote:What is the Imperial obession with rivets? have they ever heard of welding?
I like rivets of course, but what is wrong with them?

Because they can fly around in the tank and actually kill the people inside?
Most of their tanks seem to be based off WW2-Vietnam era tanks, that and yes it's just for looks. Don't try to think about it too much, it's asthetic like a lot of the Imperial equipment.

WWI to mid-WWII era tanks, most of the older riveted british tanks had their rivets spot-welded to prevent them from flying around inside and outside of the tank when it is hit.

now your just complicating things lol.
as for the servitor thing, can a factory line servitor actually do something as skillful as weld properly.

plus I don't think the Imperium cares too much about how safe a tank is as long as it can kill stuff

Given that robots handle incredibly complex welds today I have no trouble imagining a servitor welding up a slab sided Leman Russ.

Considering a Servitor is programmed to do one task and one task exactly, by blueprint and without error, I think they could weld better than any human with a plasma cutter. Welding, to a Servitor, is what drawing stick people would be to Michelangelo.