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.

There are plenty of real world tanks/AVs with turrets that don't quite seem to fit either, so that's almost a plus point towards realism

Yeah, and those are aesthetically unappealing too - as effective as they may (or may not) be.

I'm OK with missing out on that level of realism when my Space Dwarves are fighting Space Rats and Space Elves!

I'm warming up towards this project right now. Dunno.

I've had this idea to do a sort of post apocalyptic wargame loosely based around Fallout for a long time.

With a mix of the 20th century brick and urban/industrial battle zones, I could make a pretty nice "near future apocalypse" board.


Plague make decent Super Mutants.
Enforcers make good power armoured Enclave.

I might want to do up some Forge Fathers as a Squats homage, but I'm not sure I want to do an army.

If the Rebs made it in, they could be credible Wastelanders. Ho hum. Probably all a pipe dream.

 Alpharius wrote:
Yeah, and those are aesthetically unappealing too - as effective as they may (or may not) be.

I'm OK with missing out on that level of realism when my Space Dwarves are fighting Space Rats and Space Elves!

People like you are the reason we can't have hard sci fi space ratmen. Not that we wanted any.

How many turret options are included with the tank? If it comes with a spare turret about the size of the defense laser in the terrain kit, that would be a big selling point for me.


...So, are they making any sponsons for the tank?

I like the renders on the new Forge Fathers tanks. I see they've got an Urban Assault Vehicle version planned as a stretch goal. The only problem I have with the design is when someone says "urban assault vehicle", this is what I think of:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I like the renders on the new Forge Fathers tanks. I see they've got an Urban Assault Vehicle version planned as a stretch goal. The only problem I have with the design is when someone says "urban assault vehicle", this is what I think of:

Spoiler:

The EM50 Urban Assault Vehicle from Stripes.

Now that's the kind of urban assault vehicle I'd accidentally drive into East Germany

Once it hits $260k the kit will have both the Hailstorm and Heavy Dragonbreath Turrets - it remains to be seen if they are entirely separate or share parts. The alpha army list also has a magma cannon turret I doubt they will fit a 3rd one in though.

I might get some Puppetwars turret platforms and mount the spare Hailstorms on them to use as Jotunns

 Alpharius wrote:
I like this new version of the FF Tank a lot better!

The APC version does look nicer - as noted the turret doesn't quite seem to 'fit', but this is certainly an improvement!

the turret is a bit tall, but I think the bigger clash is that the mantlet is curved, on a vehicle with all angled armor plates. It's a much better looking vehicle, and could become something really cool.

 Polonius wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I like this new version of the FF Tank a lot better!

The APC version does look nicer - as noted the turret doesn't quite seem to 'fit', but this is certainly an improvement!

the turret is a bit tall, but I think the bigger clash is that the mantlet is curved, on a vehicle with all angled armor plates. It's a much better looking vehicle, and could become something really cool.

The whole tank is tall, that's what looks off to me. There's a reason tanks have low profiles, the FF tank looks like it would struggle to hit anything that wasn't as high off the ground as the turret.

That (non-turreted) APC looks pretty sweet!! What material is it being made in again?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I like this new version of the FF Tank a lot better!

The APC version does look nicer - as noted the turret doesn't quite seem to 'fit', but this is certainly an improvement!

the turret is a bit tall, but I think the bigger clash is that the mantlet is curved, on a vehicle with all angled armor plates. It's a much better looking vehicle, and could become something really cool.

The whole tank is tall, that's what looks off to me. There's a reason tanks have low profiles, the FF tank looks like it would struggle to hit anything that wasn't as high off the ground as the turret.

I categorically refuse to consider such "real world" concerns. I just want tanks that look cool.

I certainly understand when others think that's important, but I just see an odd clash in proportion and lines.

It's a shame the quad gun option looks like it will be restricted to aiming straight ahead only.. it looks AA to me :/

There's a possibility the whole gunshield might traverse upwards maybe?

Am I wrong in saying that, concept wise, the gun is kinda howitzer-ish than autocannon-ish?

It's a mortar type gun, I think. I really like the dwarf tank, 3 of them might be my sole battlegroup choice.

 Bolognesus wrote:
The back of the APC looks strangely devoid of detail (not to mention the yuuuuuge 'teeth' on what looks like the hatch). I guess it's not an issue as long as you can feasibly build it with the back of the tank and just pretend that that small hatch works for the APC but still it looks sort of unfinished.

I sort of agree with this sentiment but I also think that part is intended to slam down into the ground. It looks like a heavy skid plate to me. I'll end up weathering it (physically and with paint) so it looks like worn heavy machinery right there.

As for the tank profile being too high.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/why-armys-new-tank-so-heavy
EDIT: Here's a picture of the tank for people who don't want to click the link.. Long story short.. new prototype tank is massively heavy and can carry 9 troops (thanks Grimdork).



It really depends on your philosophy it seems. In this instance, imaginary space dwarves tend to think like the designers of that tank I suppose.

 DaveC wrote:
Once it hits $260k the kit will have both the Hailstorm and Heavy Dragonbreath Turrets - it remains to be seen if they are entirely separate or share parts. The alpha army list also has a magma cannon turret I doubt they will fit a 3rd one in though.

I might get some Puppetwars turret platforms and mount the spare Hailstorms on them to use as Jotunns

The Magma Cannon will probably be a resin gun swap into the Hailstorm turret, same as how the Enforcer Arbiter is resin heavy cannons to replace the standard off-the-sprue heavy burst lasers on the normal Interceptor

The article you linked says that new 84 ton tank carries a team of 9 rather than the 6 of the Bradley it's replacing. I guess there was a misprint stating 6 when they first put it up.

Apparently the tank is so heavy because they wanted to engineer it to have extra armor, a bigger gun, and more room for the passengers to be armored (and for some space cushioning or whatever) and to count all that in along with a bigger engine from the start. I guess they started tacking extra armor and whatsits onto the Bradley for the Iraq/Afghanistan stuff and the engine was too small for the extra weight.

I guess the tank is more heavily armored to deal with the long ground wars in those areas. So I guess a big chunky forge father tank engaged in ground wars to take precious mineral veins/resources might have a similar design requirement. I mean surely they could nuke the planet from orbit but if they want to take and hold it they've gotta fight on the ground.

Gotta make an exclusive addon for the 3-pack. The first 3 variants are all on the sprue.

Love the FF tank renders. Will be snagging 3 or 6, not sure yet.

 Mort wrote:
Love the FF tank renders. Will be snagging 3 or 6, not sure yet.

This is another reason I want to see the rules finished (for FF especially). If transports are deathtraps like in some versions of 40k, then I would likely just get the tank variants. If the rules allow for Rhino Rush style play though, I would be inclined to form up a column.

Polonius wrote:I categorically refuse to consider such "real world" concerns. I just want tanks that look cool.

D'you know what's cool? Tanks that aren't purposely designed to have shot traps all down their front.

http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/28mm-red-banner.jpg

 MLaw wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
The back of the APC looks strangely devoid of detail (not to mention the yuuuuuge 'teeth' on what looks like the hatch). I guess it's not an issue as long as you can feasibly build it with the back of the tank and just pretend that that small hatch works for the APC but still it looks sort of unfinished.

I sort of agree with this sentiment but I also think that part is intended to slam down into the ground. It looks like a heavy skid plate to me. I'll end up weathering it (physically and with paint) so it looks like worn heavy machinery right there.

As for the tank profile being too high.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/why-armys-new-tank-so-heavy
EDIT: Here's a picture of the tank for people who don't want to click the link.. Long story short.. new prototype tank is massively heavy and can carry 6 troops.



It really depends on your philosophy it seems. In this instance, imaginary space dwarves tend to think like the designers of that tank I supposed.

No offense to PopSci, but that's not a tank. That's an IFV (or whatever the Army decides to call it down the road). Tracks and a turret alone does not a tank make...

Valete,

JohnS

 Vermis wrote:

Polonius wrote:I categorically refuse to consider such "real world" concerns. I just want tanks that look cool.

D'you know what's cool? Tanks that aren't purposely designed to have shot traps all down their front.

http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/28mm-red-banner.jpg

You do know that's basically a 28mm Merkava with sci-fi stuff slapped on it right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cygnnus wrote:

 MLaw wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
The back of the APC looks strangely devoid of detail (not to mention the yuuuuuge 'teeth' on what looks like the hatch). I guess it's not an issue as long as you can feasibly build it with the back of the tank and just pretend that that small hatch works for the APC but still it looks sort of unfinished.

I sort of agree with this sentiment but I also think that part is intended to slam down into the ground. It looks like a heavy skid plate to me. I'll end up weathering it (physically and with paint) so it looks like worn heavy machinery right there.

As for the tank profile being too high.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/why-armys-new-tank-so-heavy
EDIT: Here's a picture of the tank for people who don't want to click the link.. Long story short.. new prototype tank is massively heavy and can carry 6 troops.

Spoiler:

It really depends on your philosophy it seems. In this instance, imaginary space dwarves tend to think like the designers of that tank I supposed.

No offense to PopSci, but that's not a tank. That's an IFV (or whatever the Army decides to call it down the road). Tracks and a turret alone does not a tank make...

Valete,

JohnS

The FF tank is also a transport.

And.. for the sake of accuracy.. here's the definition of a tank: a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.

 MLaw wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Polonius wrote:I categorically refuse to consider such "real world" concerns. I just want tanks that look cool.

D'you know what's cool? Tanks that aren't purposely designed to have shot traps all down their front.

http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/28mm-red-banner.jpg

You do know that's basically a 28mm Merkava with sci-fi stuff slapped on it right?

Nope, it is a kind of a SciFi Russian T-90. Not close to the Merkava at all really. It does have a LOT of modern Russian style elements though (intentionally, hence the Red Banner name).

 DaveC wrote:
New FF tank/APC renders the face is more subtle now

The new tank is definitely an improvement over the corny rogue traderish original concept art. I like it but I do have a minor quibble that has been partly mentioned so I'll add to that chorus in case Mantic is reading this. The back looks too plain and doesn't specifically have enough rivets. The front of the tank looks like an early war WWII tank with all those rivets but the back has less than a third of them for the surface area compared with the front. I realize that for space dwarves they're largely aesthetic but it would be nice if the two evened out a bit. Either way, a big improvement over the Michael Bay Ironhide dwarf space tank previously shown.

 MLaw wrote:


And.. for the sake of accuracy.. here's the definition of a tank: a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.

Not a very good or accurate definition. For example, Wiki defines them

A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat. Modern tanks are mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret. They combine this with heavy vehicle armour providing protection for the crew, the vehicle's weapons, and its propulsion systems, and operational mobility, which allows them to position on the battlefield in advantageous locations.

Your IFV or what ever doesn't have the large calibre weapon nor the heavy armor to really be a tank.

 Vermis wrote:
D'you know what's cool? Tanks that aren't purposely designed to have shot traps all down their front.

You know what else is cool? Space Opera.

The shot traps are irrelevant, because the tank is made of handwavium, or unobtanium, or dwarfium, and joints that would be weak points on conventional armour are actually the strongest parts of the tank.

Or the tank was designed specifically for use on battlefields full of energy weapons that don't ricochet.

Or the dwarfs are so convinced of their own physical prowess that they don't care if the tank doesn't last more than 3 minutes on the battlefield.

Mantic isn't making hard scifi. They're making toys of elves and dwarfs in space.

Wikipedia is not recognized by most academic institutions as a credible source..
There are tanks from WW2 that had lighter armor than this tank and oh yeah.. AA mounts meaning much smaller caliber.

The bottom line, the FF tank, is being classified by Mantic as a tank in their game.

The vehicle I linked to is being classified as a tank by the US government. Wiki is literally an edit away from having their definition changed... so yeah.

A source that IS recognized by academic bodies.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tank

And another

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/tank

one more

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tank


EDIT: Sorry guys, got carried away.. it's time for dinner I think..

Oh dear. A discussion on what does, and what does not, constitute a tank. Probably best if everyone who doesn't immediately decide to have a go at that debate check back at page 25 or so - that's probably going to be less than 12h knowing how these things usually go

@MLaw
I see your point. still it could have done with not literally being a 3ft (to scale) solid metal (or whatever) plate. I know they're dwarves but hell, you'd say they'd have gotten *some* idea of fuel efficiency by now.
...Not even to mention you'd really want all that additional thickness up front. Maybe evening out the zillion shot traps. (gah, now I'm doing it too!)

I do however really like the front of that thing more and more every time I see those renders. It's perfectly corny, yet somehow not quite too much. Shame I have no interest in forge fathers as a whole, but those will be cool to see on the table. ...as long as they're coming at you, that is

 MLaw wrote:
The bottom line, the FF tank, is being classified by Mantic as a tank in their game.

And that's probably sufficient for this thread.

If anyone really wants to continue the discussion on the definition of a tank, Off Topic would be the place to do it.