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's with the barrels? Why does the Anti Tank Leman Russ need a barrel longer than itself, and why does a lascannon need a barrel at all?

What do you mean by "Upside down Treads"?

How does flat armor resist lasers? You'd expect a slope to disperse the energy of the laser, meaning it won't melt straight through as easy.

Good point on the lascannon, ansacs.

However Flinty, that's not entirely true. The longer the barrel, the more accurately you place the round, at the loss of velocity. You're making the shot spin more to keep on target at the reduction of distance. That's why you see reasonably sized tank cannons. Not this.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080206125010/scratchpad/images/b/ba/Vanquisher1.jpg

 Flinty wrote:

 Will1541 wrote:
Good point on the lascannon, ansacs.

However Flinty, that's not entirely true. The longer the barrel, the more accurately you place the round, at the loss of velocity. You're making the shot spin more to keep on target at the reduction of distance. That's why you see reasonably sized tank cannons. Not this.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080206125010/scratchpad/images/b/ba/Vanquisher1.jpg

Some examples of AT guns with awfully long barrels, comparable in length to the tank that carries it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_PaK_43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_%28tank_destroyer%29

They just don't look as stupid becasue they aren't at GW's foolish macro-calibre. The longer the barrel, the more time the propellant charge has to accellerate the projectile. I think if you look through the examples above, all of the truly high velocity AT guns had inordinately long barrels.

Regarding flat surfaces and non-angled armour, its still hard to justify not taking an easy win on angled armour. Marine tanks have it, why not Imperial tanks at large?

Those are Tank Hunters, not tanks. Their armor is... they have no armor. so they are actually only about what you see, wheras a portion of the Vanquisher cannon is in the tank. (Exception Jagdpanther which wasn't known for having range, which is my point.) The vanquisher cannon can have three models in base contact underneath it. Proportionally, that's a 10 foot gun, meaning 10 feet of velocity loss through spinning against the barrel. The Nashhorn had a 71 inch gun, meaning the vanquisher is almost double that length. And you expect that to go 72"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Grey Templar, rifles reach father because they have more powder. The barrel only increases accuracy.