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.

I've made a model M1A1 Abrams American main battle tank this summer and I thought I could use it for warhammer in my space marine army, but All Of a sudden I'm a bit stuck on rules, its not all high as a predator but is about 1.5X as long plus I figured it having an autocannon and a heavy stubber just wouldn't do justice to such a famous tank, So I figured:

M1A1 Abrams points: 180

Amour: FR-14 SI-12 BA-10 balsitic skill-4

Wargear
-Battlecannon*
-Pintle mounted boltgun
-automated sights**

*Battlecannon Str-8 Ap-3 Large blast

**The M1A1 Abrams pilots have sights built in to the main wepons resulting in Tracer sights alowing the pilots to shug of the strongest of jolts from hits, due to this the tanks main battlecannon may fire, even if a crew shaken or crew stunned result has been rolled on the tank, the top pintle mounted twin linked bolter is not connected with these sights and therefore may not fire if a crew stunned or crew shanken result has been rolled on this tank

here's a link to a good pick of it, I don't actually know how to paste the pick into my writing without it ending up in mt gallery:
http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/acy/acy1345.jpg

Wrong forum.

And it sounds like a little overpriced Leman Russ. I'd just use it as a predator.

Or you could use the tank as a counts as Predator / Leman Russ without having to make up and/or break any rules.

Or you could use GW stuff because an Abrams just looks totally out of place in 40k. It's simultaneously higher-tech than 40k stuff because of computers (which are very limited in 40k), but lower tech because of materials and weapons technology.

M1A1 Abrams is basicly a Stormshadow as a super heavy...I run Bradleys and Striker vehicles in my Chaos force.

180 points is steep. 160 sure.

well if I were to play with you, i'd like predator with wrong dimensions rather than possesed LR, which is always in cover

And you call this little pipe a Battlecannon? As a Guard player I feel offended

My Wife uses something similar as a Looted Wagon(actually it is a Panzer Kampfwagon model) Works well as a Boom gun Wagon with 2 Big Shootas(1 hull mounted the other a top-half of a Big Shoota ork model sticking out of the copula)

Make a rule for the speed. Leman Russes move at ~40km/h and modern tanks move at 72km/h. Something like upping the cruising speed to 15".

M1 Abrams would be more like a Vanquisher with a pintle mounted heavy stubber and a machine spirit that is fast so it can fire while moving 12 and use the machine spirit to fire its heavy stubber at another target or fire its main gun if it got hit.

thanks for the idea's, the main reason I wanted to make some diferent rules for it is that it's quite big compared to SM/CSM tanks, its roughly: 3.5" tall, 5" wide and 9.5" long.

(Kubik, by the way the battlecannon is 4.5" long.)

I also plan to replace the pilot, he's a, er, very big compaired to a marine.

I do realise thats the points value is quite high, sometimes I overdo things when It comes to balancing things out, so 160p like what Jaon said, mabie 170p If its going to be a fast vehicle.

What are the rules for a heavy stubber by the way? I don't have a guard codex so I don't know.

Well dunno about points but this is how I see the Abrams.

BS4 Fast Vehicle AV14/12/11

turret mounted 120 mm cannon Range 120"
Fires several different types of rounds
Guided Anti Tank Heavy 1 Strength 9 AP2 2D6 armor penetration.
Anti Personel Heavy 1 Strength 9 AP3 Large Blast Ordinance

pintle 50 cal machine gun heavy 3 strength 5 ap 4

pintle 7.62 cal machine gun heavy 3 strength 4 ap 5

coaxial 7.62 cal machine gun heavy 3 strength 4 ap 5

each weapon has its own machine spirit so they can all fire at different targets.

targeting computer gets +1 to BS if moving 6" or less.

Optional Tusk upgrade kit
Adds second pintle 50 cal machine gun heavy 3 strength 5 ap 4
Adds +1 armor to sides and rear so armor is 14/13/12

It wouldn't be Fast. Remember the Russ has Lumbering Behemoth; it's a regular tank. I agree with the BS because of the fire control as well as training puts it somewhere in the low end of that bracket, and that's pretty much all it gets.

The .50 cal is simply a Heavy Stubber. That's:

Heavy Stubber "0.50 Cal"
Rng36" S4 AP6 Heavy 3

The one thing we know about the Abrams is that it does not have a Machine Spirit (Machine Spirits ain't computers or crew!).

Co-axial & Pintle 7.62mm Machine Guns
Rng36" S3 AP6 Heavy 3

Armour-wise, as mentioned while it's the pinacle of 20th century armour technology, it's stilll 20th century tech. I'd peg it at FA13/SA12/RA10. It automatically has Extra Armour.

Gun-wise:

Anti-Tank
Rng60" S9 AP1 Heavy 1

High Explosive
Rng60" S8 AP3 Heavy 1 Blast

Moving to correct forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirika wrote:M1 Abrams would be more like a Vanquisher with a pintle mounted heavy stubber and a machine spirit that is fast so it can fire while moving 12 and use the machine spirit to fire its heavy stubber at another target or fire its main gun if it got hit.

Amongst friends, see rules here. In more open gaming, use as a vanquisher with no sponsons, or alternately Leman with no sponsons.

Madman49 wrote:[snip]

Armor: No. Modern tanks can be taken out and disabled by a dude with a rocket launcher, which is probably inferior to 40k's missile weapons. Personally, I'd rather call it AV12/11/10. 13/12/10 at most.

Main weapon: No, that cannon is nowhere near as good as a Battle Cannon. Maybe when fitted with anti-tank shells it'd be as powerful against vehicles... but keep in mind that a Battle Cannon's large blast is roughly equivalent in size (probably a bit lower, but still dramatically different from, say, a plasma cannon) to that of a massively destructive rocket fired from a manticore.

Pintle: No, the pintle mount is nowhere near as powerful as a boltgun (a boltgun would basically be a light anti-tank weapon in our world). At most, it would be a Heavy Stubber. Also, give it another heavy stubber that's forward-mounted.

Modern Tanks can be disabled by Sand (lol).

Leman Russes can be made from metal scraps in a cave, be dropped from orbit, go though 5 fights, get dropped from orbit again and still be in workable condition.

Also, modern tank armor doesn't have the endurance that the Leman Russ' armor has. It's not intended to take a bunch of anti-tank shots... just to survive long enough to get the hell out of the danger zone.

I could see it having AV14, but with a special rule that any glancing or penetrating hit reduces its AV by 1.

It should always be able to shoot its cannon regardless of how far it moves that round due to targeting computers.

Is immune to nightfighting rules, ignores all 'to see' rolls as it has thermal imaging.

I have no idea if this is useful at all, but if your playing group uses modern stuff then it might be
NBC Gear: immune to all effects of radiation, biological and chemical contamination.

Melissia wrote:Also, modern tank armor doesn't have the endurance that the Leman Russ' armor has. It's not intended to take a bunch of anti-tank shots... just to survive long enough to get the hell out of the danger zone.

I could see it having AV14, but with a special rule that any glancing or penetrating hit reduces its AV by 1.

Could you support that with something? Because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Armor
with the following especially pertinent


"In the Persian Gulf War, Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks and ATGMs. M829A1 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents as well as an incident in which another Abrams tried to destroy an Abrams that got stuck in mud and had to be abandoned.[23]"

Is it supposed to actually be an Abrams that somehow survived 38,000 years hidden away in a supply cache somewhere or something, or is it supposed to be a future tank that just looks a whole lot like an old Abrams?

Because if the former, the Melissia and co have a point, in 40K they use all sorts of gobbledigook technology that's really loads more supertough and things. While the armour on an Abrams is incredible by modern standards, it'd be lightweight by 40K levels.

If the latter, then I'd probably just use it as a Leman Russ with no side sponsons. If that didn't feel right, given it's size, I think it'd be reasonable to give it the automated sights rule you wrote up.

Here is an idea, use it as a Devil Dog.

The Cannon's Superspecialawesomeness is represented by the Melta Blast and the Lightweight Armour and Speed is represented by the lightweight armour and speed!

Except its cannon isn't superspecial awesome...

Bromsy: Yes, it has happened that way. However, you should go read up on Chobham armor.

Using the same source you gave (Wikipedia) on Chobham Armor:

Ceramic tiles have a "multiple hit capability" problem in that they cannot sustain successive impacts without quickly losing much of their protective value.

Source cited by Wikipedia for the statement was this:

W.S. de Rosset and J.K. Wald, "Analysis of Multiple-Hit Criterion for Ceramic Armor", US Army Research Laboratory TR-2861, September 2002

... which, given its origin (underlined by me for emphasis), seems a rather reliable source.

I think I'm going to use Nurglitch's Rules for it

who cares, the challenger 2 is vastly superior lol

American tank performance during the 1st Gulf War was honestly more a function of: a) complete air superiority b) the Iraqis having very very bad tanks shells than American tank superiority. The Iraqi's chose to manufacture their own shells which were of, honestly, very crappy quality, not to mention were using export version of the T-72.

But as for the M1A1 tanks, I'd have to say that a Hellhound chassis hull with Nurglitch's gun, and maybe a co-axial heavy stubber would be best. Seems to fit with most of the general sentiments about the tank.

Front - 11
Side - 11
Rear - 10

Main gun - Range 36" Str 6 Ap 5 Heavy 1, Blast
Turret mounted heavy stubber.

As awesome as it is in today's military, it's complete trash to the military hardware of 40k.

I'm not sure I agree with the armor 11 for the front, I would think 12 a least as it should be better than an apc armor (11) but worse than the 40k tank armor (13 for pred). I definitely agree with making it weak in comparison to the other tanks. It would be fun to have an army of stub rifle troops and abrams tanks, just for the sake of doing it. Very fun alternate universe.

Luco wrote:I'm not sure I agree with the armor 11 for the front, I would think 12 a least as it should be better than an apc armor (11) but worse than the 40k tank armor (13 for pred). I definitely agree with making it weak in comparison to the other tanks. It would be fun to have an army of stub rifle troops and abrams tanks, just for the sake of doing it. Very fun alternate universe.

Who's APC?

A 113 would be armor 9 all around and open-topped.

I was thinking Rhinos.

I think a Rhino is just as tough as an M1A1.