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.

rob-or-ross wrote:I can see how you would have to sacrifice the troop capacity of a Valk to buff it up with guns that use ammunition but lascannons do not.

Fit 6 lascannons and stick on a bigger alternator. Job done.

Kanluwen wrote:
Then Predators carrying Lascannons should be able to carry troops.

They don't, because the "bigger alternator" is having to power something huge. The Valkyrie has no "alternator" in place to power six weapons at once. The Valkyrie, traditionally, has only had 'solid ammunition' type weaponry like Missile Pods, Hellstrike AT missiles, bombs, and to carry Sentinels or Tarantulas or Cyclops demo vehicles they had to put on additional fuel tanks.

I agree, predators with lascannons should get to carry troops.
All that you need to put into a lascannon is electric trickery so if you generators on the vehicle are big enough then that should be fine.

rob-or-ross wrote:
Things like the Huey widowmaker with 2 quad linked M60s had to carry less troops to make way for ammo and if you wanted say, quad autocannons on a Valk I'd say yeah, stop it from carrying troops.

Kanluwen wrote:
Not sure why quad autocannons would affect the size, considering the ammunition feeds are attached to the gun and not the aircraft itself.

That's sloppy modelling, on the HWS ones you can see the loader can change the drum but on an aircraft who is going to climb along the underside of the wing to change the drum?
On an aircraft mounted autocannon there should be a belt feed.
Add to that the fact that the drum on the autocannon as modelled would hold about 10 rounds - you would need massive hoppers of ammo in the aircraft, with ammo it tends not to be a volume issue that limits weapon capacity but a weight one.

Thinking of that - I wonder how much a lascannon weighs?

rob-or-ross wrote:
The updates to the imperial armour books contain the rules for the Vulture and are freely available on the FW website.

My personal favourite from that series of aircraft it the Vulture with twin linked punisher cannons.
185 points with a couple of survivability upgrades for 15 (on average) S5 AP- hits, that is a great way to force your opponent to allocate wounds to his whole squad and force some armour saves.
Very Vietnam.

Kanluwen wrote:

Again, more Black Hawk Down.

But that's my own bias talking...and the Vulture I have sitting in a bag right now.

Yeah but the twin minigun Huey was first introduced in 'Nam as was the AC-47 - three miniguns poking out of the side of a light cargo aircraft (like the valk).

While typing this post I started wondering about how much a lascannon weighs and if 6 of them (with increased generator size) weigh as much as 12 combat-loaded blokes.
Probably not but perhaps 6?
I can get on board with halving the capacity of the Vendetta.

I am jealous of your Vulture BTW.
I might have to get myself one of those...

marv335 wrote:

ImpGuardPanzies wrote:A chinook // They can also be repaired while flying due to frame devolopment on the inside.

I'm an aircraft engineer with years of experience in helicopters and repairs of such. I've worked on chinooks among others.
There is no way whatsoever that you are doing any repairs on a flying helicopter.
Seriously, WTF?
You can't do structural work because of the mechanical stresses on the airframe, you can't work on the Hydraulics because they're pressurised in flight, you can't work on the transmission because it's turning/pressurised, you can't work on the flying control runs because they're in use.

Well the Military channel has lied to me then. I was watching some episode about Chinooks and they said that wires were exposed on the inside, incase something happened mid-flight to a wire. They said(and showed) a small box with saupossed extra wires, not much of anything at all. Maybe an 8' x 6' box. The box thing seemed kinda weird to me. But i bought into the whole 'temporary repairs could be made while in flight if an engineer or someone with knowelge of how-to was on board' Sorry for passing out faulty info. thought military channel was credible.

Edit- And It makes sense that your not able to work on those things because theyre in use(I agree), however its kinda hard to use them when a wire goes faulty, or breaks(no longer in use). Therefore an attempted repair would probably be needed as you could have hydrolic fluid going into the chopper, or a system of sorts not working due to the lack of connection.

Have to say I think the Valkyrie is one of the coolest looking kits that GW do.

Kinda like the A-10 and Mi-24 made sweet, sweet love to one another.

Which justifies why I bought and painted one despite not having an IG army...

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/VULTURE-GUNSHIP.html

When they make this an option in the IG codex, I will finally get a flying machine for my Army. Until then, Tanks, Tanks, and more Tanks.

Yes, I want to use the two punisher cannons to have a whole lot of fun.

ImpGuardPanzies wrote:
an attempted repair would probably be needed as you could have hydrolic fluid going into the chopper, or a system of sorts not working due to the lack of connection.

Hyd fluid is pressurised to around 3000psi in most aircraft systems, sometimes more.
If someone puts a round through a pipe, you're not stopping it, fluid at that pressure can cause serious injury.
All the electrical wiring (for the avionics etc) is in thick looms with dozens of wires, all the same colour.
repairing that will also be near impossible
Any fiberoptics, forget about it, I'm trained in fiberoptic repair, and welding that stuff is not going to happen in flight, it's hard enough to do on the ground!

I've watched a few of those "Military Channel" type programmes and the amount of inaccurate rubbish they spout out is incredible.

Ok, well then forgive me for the false informtion. I know some of the stories seem far fetched. Does the Abrahms tank have a medical bay in it? One of the programs was talking about a U.S tank with a medical bay, I think it was the Abrahms.

NO, no medic bay in an M1 of any variety that I know of. Being a 11 year member of the US Army, I believe I can qualify for a local expert on the things. However, the M113 and also the Stryker vehicle have been coverted for such a role.

rob-or-ross wrote:
Yeah but the twin minigun Huey was first introduced in 'Nam as was the AC-47 - three miniguns poking out of the side of a light cargo aircraft (like the valk).

While typing this post I started wondering about how much a lascannon weighs and if 6 of them (with increased generator size) weigh as much as 12 combat-loaded blokes.
Probably not but perhaps 6?
I can get on board with halving the capacity of the Vendetta.

I am jealous of your Vulture BTW.
I might have to get myself one of those...

The vulture is one badass model, I loved mine although it didn't get alot of playing time (apoc only) it was still a damn nice model.

I LOVE the AC-47 Spookey and its sucessor the AC-130 Spector Gunship....those 7.62 mini-guns just chew the crap outta S**t!!. On the 130 do they still use the 7.62 minigun or do they use something closer to the GAU sceries of gatling guns? ( I believe the GAU-8 fires 30MM cannon shells... going to have to check that one out) With sweet sweet depleted Uranium.

I believe some of the grunts in The 'Nam called the AC-47 "Puff the Magic Dragon"... awsome sauce....now that reminds me I have to get back to building my little firebase, rice paddies and hootches.... For the firebase I create I even want to have 'latrees' modeled so that you can 'frag' bad officers. =o]

Edit, wiki is your friend ; Most of the weaponry aboard is mounted to fire out from the left or port side of the aircraft. During an attack, the gunship performs a pylon turn over the target area (flying in a large circle around a fixed point on the ground, the fixed point being the target). This allows it to maintain fire at a target far longer than a conventional attack aircraft. The AC-130H "Spectre" can be armed with two 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannons, one Bofors 40mm autocannon, and one 105 mm M102 cannon. The upgraded AC-130U "Spooky" has a single 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer in place of the Spectre's twin 20 mm cannons, as well as an improved fire control system and increased capacity for ammunition. New AC-130J gunships based on MC-130J Combat Shadow II special operations tankers are planned. Power is provided by four Allison T56-A-15 turboprops (standard for a C-130 Hercules).

I love Vultures so much. I need them. I need flying punisher cannons. I NEED them.

I have found that Valkyries/Vendettas are only good at getting shot down during turn one.

Personally I like all of the LRBT variants (fluff wise).

It's all good stuff, GAU is just what the US airforce call weapons in the same sense as the Army calls the M whatever.

So an M4 (5.56mm infantry carbine) in the Air Force is called a GAU 5-AA (similar but not the same as an M4).

Flying punishers are good but don't forget as ambrosius said:
They get shot down.

2 is 1 - 1 is none.

I personaly like the A-10 and the Globe master. I guess A-10 varient would be a maurder bomber or the Vulture...and a Glabe Master(those massive fat airplanes that can only carry 2 tanks and a s**t ton of people..if my knowlege is correct..which so far it hasnt been) would be the venator or w.e its called that carrys Tarous vehcicals. - the heavy ones w/ lascannons and stuff.

One of the reasons I have to come back to the Guard for the third time.

If these stormtrooper plastics turn up next year, I'll be doing a full aircav regiment to go alongside my troops based regiment theat I have started a month or so back, and eventual Tank Regiment.

Not sure what it is, probably Gaunts Ghosts, but It doesn't feel right to me unless I have multiple Guard Regiments to draw troops from for a game.

Even if the Stormtroopers don't turn up, I'll probably get a couple, one for a Droptroop Veteran squad, and one for my Harker infiltration team, (Him, with a squad using the cloaks veteran enhancement) to represent it dropping them off behind enemy lines.

I love he idea of an AirCav regiment, especially in Wh40k. To actually build the regiment though...that'd be something amazing to see.

Kanluwen wrote:

rob-or-ross wrote:I can see how you would have to sacrifice the troop capacity of a Valk to buff it up with guns that use ammunition but lascannons do not.

Fit 6 lascannons and stick on a bigger alternator. Job done.

Then Predators carrying Lascannons should be able to carry troops.

They don't, because the "bigger alternator" is having to power something huge. The Valkyrie has no "alternator" in place to power six weapons at once. The Valkyrie, traditionally, has only had 'solid ammunition' type weaponry like Missile Pods, Hellstrike AT missiles, bombs, and to carry Sentinels or Tarantulas or Cyclops demo vehicles they had to put on additional fuel tanks.

Generally speaking, aircraft engines tend to put out much more power than tank engines. They could probably run a pair from the electrical power form the engine, and if they had secondary generators in place, I can see it being possible. Hell, they could even re-route bleed air from the engines to power a third generator.

That being said, the man-portable lascannons use tiny battery packs, with no impact on their performance. We can just assume the same were used in the aircraft. As far as the tank transporting people? It's a good question that I doubt GW will ever have an answer to.

Nocturn wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

rob-or-ross wrote:I can see how you would have to sacrifice the troop capacity of a Valk to buff it up with guns that use ammunition but lascannons do not.

Fit 6 lascannons and stick on a bigger alternator. Job done.

Then Predators carrying Lascannons should be able to carry troops.

They don't, because the "bigger alternator" is having to power something huge. The Valkyrie has no "alternator" in place to power six weapons at once. The Valkyrie, traditionally, has only had 'solid ammunition' type weaponry like Missile Pods, Hellstrike AT missiles, bombs, and to carry Sentinels or Tarantulas or Cyclops demo vehicles they had to put on additional fuel tanks.

Generally speaking, aircraft engines tend to put out much more power than tank engines. They could probably run a pair from the electrical power form the engine, and if they had secondary generators in place, I can see it being possible. Hell, they could even re-route bleed air from the engines to power a third generator.

If it were possible, Lascannons on a Vulture would not have their own power source. The Vulture doesn't have a passenger compartment to worry about either.
for reference.

The whole reason they don't have a "fixed" power source running off the aircraft itself is so that the weapon profiles can be refitted as necessary.

That being said, the man-portable lascannons use tiny battery packs, with no impact on their performance. We can just assume the same were used in the aircraft.

Using man-portable lascannons and their "tiny battery packs" as an example is not going to fly(no pun intended). The battery packs control just the power input, with the loader and gunner having to constantly regulate and adjust the battery's output to ensure it doesn't suffer a catastrophic overload.

Plus there's the whole reason I gave above, and the fact that man-portable lascannons can have their battery packs recharged as necessary in combat.

As far as the tank transporting people? It's a good question that I doubt GW will ever have an answer to.

It was a facetious question. The personnel compartment is removed to house power generators for the main Lascannons, cooling apparatus, and space for a gunner.

RoborRoss wrote:That's sloppy modelling, on the HWS ones you can see the loader can change the drum but on an aircraft who is going to climb along the underside of the wing to change the drum?
On an aircraft mounted autocannon there should be a belt feed.
Add to that the fact that the drum on the autocannon as modelled would hold about 10 rounds - you would need massive hoppers of ammo in the aircraft, with ammo it tends not to be a volume issue that limits weapon capacity but a weight one.

Thinking of that - I wonder how much a lascannon weighs?

The autocannon, as modeled by FW for the Vulture, would hold probably 30 rounds per gun. It's important to remember that Autocannons are not meant to just be sprayed willynilly at the enemy, but rather fired much like AT weapons: aimed and properly targeted.

Kanluwen wrote:Using man-portable lascannons and their "tiny battery packs" as an example is not going to fly(no pun intended).

I disagree. That pun was 100% intended.

Kanluwen wrote:

Nocturn wrote:] As far as the tank transporting people? It's a good question that I doubt GW will ever have an answer to.

It was a facetious question. The personnel compartment is removed to house power generators for the main Lascannons, cooling apparatus, and space for a gunner.

It was a facetious answer. A sarcasm font would be handy.

30 rounds a gun is nothing.

The Apache (sort of equivalent of the Vulture) carries 1,200 rounds of ammo for its auto cannon.

The P51D Mustang famously carried 27 feet of linked 50 cal ammo (believed to be the etymology of the phrase "giving him the whole 9 yards") which is (a horrible approximation of) 525 rounds even back in WWII.

An aircraft mounted minigun typically has a hopper of 4,000 link but there can be up to 12,000 rounds on board.


The problem (time and again) is that we can't use real world analogies with GW because of a combination of balance and either ignorant or sloppy modelling.

The old bolter mag thing comes to mind. 30 rounds in a mag, no spare mags.
That is going to be one short ass fight.

No wonder everybody still has swords in the 41st millennium.

rob-or-ross wrote:30 rounds a gun is nothing.

The Apache (sort of equivalent of the Vulture) carries 1,200 rounds of ammo for its auto cannon.

The P51D Mustang famously carried 27 feet of linked 50 cal ammo (believed to be the etymology of the phrase "giving him the whole 9 yards") which is (a horrible approximation of) 525 rounds even back in WWII.

An aircraft mounted minigun typically has a hopper of 4,000 link but there can be up to 12,000 rounds on board.

The autocannon is not a minigun. It's not used to demolish buildings, or for suppression fire. It's used to pulverize large targets and light vehicles.

Maybe you should tell the military to start carrying 1200 rounds of ammo for antimaterial rifles. Clearly, they're using too little.

The problem (time and again) is that we can't use real world analogies with GW because of a combination of balance and either ignorant or sloppy modelling.

The old bolter mag thing comes to mind. 30 rounds in a mag, no spare mags.

30 rounds in a mag for what amounts to a recoilless rifle, being used by a force which is going to be operating either for minutes at a time or with vehicles to carry the equipment loadout. Usually with 3-4 spare mags in pouches on their personage(which usually is not modeled by players).

That is going to be one short ass fight.

That's kind of what most fights in 40k are supposed to be. They're supposed to be the "snapshot" of the most important, pivotal moments of a fight.

Kanluwen wrote:

rob-or-ross wrote:30 rounds a gun is nothing.

The Apache (sort of equivalent of the Vulture) carries 1,200 rounds of ammo for its auto cannon.

The P51D Mustang famously carried 27 feet of linked 50 cal ammo (believed to be the etymology of the phrase "giving him the whole 9 yards") which is (a horrible approximation of) 525 rounds even back in WWII.

An aircraft mounted minigun typically has a hopper of 4,000 link but there can be up to 12,000 rounds on board.

The autocannon is not a minigun. It's not used to demolish buildings, or for suppression fire. It's used to pulverize large targets and light vehicles.

Maybe you should tell the military to start carrying 1200 rounds of ammo for antimaterial rifles. Clearly, they're using too little.

The problem (time and again) is that we can't use real world analogies with GW because of a combination of balance and either ignorant or sloppy modelling.

The old bolter mag thing comes to mind. 30 rounds in a mag, no spare mags.

30 rounds in a mag for what amounts to a recoilless rifle, being used by a force which is going to be operating either for minutes at a time or with vehicles to carry the equipment loadout. Usually with 3-4 spare mags in pouches on their personage(which usually is not modeled by players).

That is going to be one short ass fight.

That's kind of what most fights in 40k are supposed to be. They're supposed to be the "snapshot" of the most important, pivotal moments of a fight.

What he said...... Autocannons are not miniguns at all. They are a medium between tank cannons and higly explosive mm shells 50Cal up i guess. They should be able to penetrate lightly armoured vheicals, take down a building wall or damage a strong foot sloger. They have a greater stregnth than a minigun, but dont have to be re-loaded inbetween each shot like a tank cannon. Theyre a nice median, but by no means even close to a minigun. (although that would be pretty amazing- reference to vulcan mega bolter- similar stats i believe..dont corect me if im wrong, just let it be too many other things to correct)