Does the way GW think Barrel length works piss anyone else off?

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.

**Harriticus**

The designs of most GW vehicles themselves are inspired from WW1 and the interwar period mainly. There's no vehicles in 40k that are actually practically designed. Back when GW had a soul they deliberately parodied this.

The most basic issue in terms of GW models though is scale. i.e. good luck fitting 10 marines into a rhino based on tabletop scale.

**Ailaros**

Also, to be fair, the russ chassis is 11.5 x 8.7cm which, at scale, is 6.9 x 5.2m. A Panzer III, by comparison, was 5.5 x 2.9.

The Leman Russ isn't too small to be a tank. It only looks small because of its freakish tallness, but it's not too small to fit a crew. Indeed, a Panzer III's crew would find it somewhat spacious.

**amanita**

@ Scipio Africanus

I believe the short barrel of the demolisher is patterned after the WW II assault gun Sturmtiger. This was essentially a rocket powered heavy mortar. The demolisher barrel even has the same vent tubes around the main barrel as the Sturmtiger which kept the crew from getting roasted by the rocket's exhaust!

**Wulfmar**

Gentlemen, I think we're all missing the point about the size of our guns.

It's not the size of your barrel, but how you use it. You might have a large one but as mentioned earlier, the reality is a weaker delivery of payload. Thankfully 40K rules don't work using reality otherwise we'd be firing the tanks main weapons with ranges of 12ft+ for the main guns

I wouldn't say GW's mantra is bigger is better. It's more along the lines of ''The more Skulls covering it = Better''. It just happens that they like to model bigger guns.

If only the missis agreed with that.

**Scipio Africanus**

Wulfmar wrote:
Gentlemen, I think we're all missing the point about the size of our guns.

It's not the size of your barrel, but how you use it. You might have a large one but as mentioned earlier, the reality is a weaker delivery of payload. Thankfully 40K rules don't work using reality otherwise we'd be firing the tanks main weapons with ranges of 12ft+ for the main guns

I wouldn't say GW's mantra is bigger is better. It's more along the lines of ''The more Skulls covering it = Better''. It just happens that they like to model bigger guns.

If only the missis agreed with that.

... Skulls AND cadian corpses!

**TheCustomLime**

You would think the Departmento Munitorum would be pissed about it's gear being used as decorative pieces. But I guess the Imperium is willing to go to any length for fashion.

**Toburk**

amanita wrote:
I believe the short barrel of the demolisher is patterned after the WW II assault gun Sturmtiger. This was essentially a rocket powered heavy mortar. The demolisher barrel even has the same vent tubes around the main barrel as the Sturmtiger which kept the crew from getting roasted by the rocket's exhaust!

The Vindicator is definitely based on the Sturmpanzer and Sturmtiger. Assault guns were an actual thing in WW2; heavy front armour, with a short barreled, high caliber direct fire gun. Drive up to whatever needs killing and dispense high explosive murder.

That's a 380mm projectile, almost 5 feet long and weighing 830 pounds. Definite Nazi-style S10 AP2

Spoiler:

**AllSeeingSkink**

Toburk wrote:
amanita wrote:
I believe the short barrel of the demolisher is patterned after the WW II assault gun Sturmtiger. This was essentially a rocket powered heavy mortar. The demolisher barrel even has the same vent tubes around the main barrel as the Sturmtiger which kept the crew from getting roasted by the rocket's exhaust!

The Vindicator is definitely based on the Sturmpanzer and Sturmtiger. Assault guns were an actual thing in WW2; heavy front armour, with a short barreled, high caliber direct fire gun. Drive up to whatever needs killing and dispense high explosive murder.

That's a 380mm projectile, almost 5 feet long and weighing 830 pounds. Definite Nazi-style S10 AP2

Spoiler:

The more impressive thing is that thing carried 14 of those rounds and some how the crew managed to load them even though they weighed up to 376kg.

**Exergy**

Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, no. Length and rifling have some correlation, but not in the way you think. Longer barrels will always (up to a point) generate higher velocities as the propellant is acting on the projectile for a longer period of time before dispersing than a shorter barrel.

One will notice that the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank and M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank both have smoothbore guns, in fact largely the same gun, but the newest versions of the Leopard 2 now have a longer barrel than older versions to facilitate increased velocity (instead of upping to a 140mm gun) and thus have higher penetrative capability than older versions of the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams.

One can look at tanks through time and a similar trend. Look at the Panther's 75mm gun compared to a Sherman's 75mm gun and the Panther's barrel length is like twice as long and had way more penetrative capability and accuracy, and was in fact potentially going to be change to an even longer barrel. The Tiger likewise had a very long barrel relative to other tanks of its time, which (along with the relatively larger size of its projectile than most contemporaries and great optics) gave it incredible accuracy and range, while the Tiger II's gun barrel was even longer and resultingly more longer ranged and better penetrating.

This is true, the barrel length is primarily about getting the propellant to work for a longer period of time. Longer barrel = more time the charge is pushing the shot = more powerful shot. The rifling is only a minor afterthought.

**Plumbumbarum**

No it doesn't piss me off. Congratulations on nitpicking about realism in a setting that is made ridiculous on purpose so for example this guy can have exactly 2 other guys up there:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-PL/Grey-Knights-Inquisitor-Karamazov

Take that uber nerdy bs to Star Trek and stop ruining 40k, I cringe at the thought GW could listen and start making bland sf designs because hur dur it couldn't walk how does it shoot etc. Stormraven looks like crap not because it wouldn't fly but because it is overly boxy, it would look like crap being a car, building or whatever. Helldrake looks bad because it looks kiddish/ fantasyish/ crap/ toylike/ too nice for chaos etc. If it's cool grim and dark, it's ok and no realism is required, or wanted.

Scipio Africanus wrote:
McGibs wrote:
I like the leman russ cutaways that show up in some of the FW books. You can tell how frustrated the artist is, trying to make sense of the thing.

"i know tanks have suspension but... uh... fukkit, I'll just draw some springs here."

WHERE THE FETH DOES THE DRIVER SIT?

HOW DOES THE CAPTAIN STAND OUTSIDE THE MAIN TURRET, WHILE FIRING THE MAIN CANNON.

WHO MANS THE SPONSONS!? HOW DOES THE HEAVY BOLTER EVEN FIT?!

WHO CARES?!

**TedNugent**

Pzkpw IV Ausf F vs Pzkfw IV Ausf J

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/75-mm.asp

The 75 mm KwK 37 L/24 of the upper image achieves a velocity of 385 m/s and a penetration of 41 mm of RHA steel at 1000 meters with armor piercing ballistic capped ammunition.

The 75 mm KwK 40 L/48 gun of the lower image achieves a velocity of 740 m/s and a penetration of 81 mm of RHA steel at 1000 meters with APCBC ammunition.

The Panzer IV Ausf F was produced from February 1940 to March 42, whereas the Panzer IV Ausf J of the below image was produced through June 1944 to March 1945.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-medium/pzkpfw-iv-production.asp

**Scipio Africanus**

Plumbumbarum wrote:No it doesn't piss me off. Congratulations on nitpicking about realism in a setting that is made ridiculous on purpose so for example this guy can have exactly 2 other guys up there:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-PL/Grey-Knights-Inquisitor-Karamazov

Take that uber nerdy bs to Star Trek and stop ruining 40k, I cringe at the thought GW could listen and start making bland sf designs because hur dur it couldn't walk how does it shoot etc. Stormraven looks like crap not because it wouldn't fly but because it is overly boxy, it would look like crap being a car, building or whatever. Helldrake looks bad because it looks kiddish/ fantasyish/ crap/ toylike/ too nice for chaos etc. If it's cool grim and dark, it's ok and no realism is required, or wanted.

WHO CARES?!

Clearly I care. And the fact that I used capitals? Kinda suggests I was having a joke.

Congratulations on turning a fun thread about making fun of GW's Design ideals and turning it into a YOU'RE THE REASON RIPTIDES thread. This was never meant to be a serious thread, and I'm rather annoyed that you decided to take it as one. Step away from your PC, Calm your raging nerd boner and accept that we're all uber nerds here, because we play games in the most nerdy way possible.

GW already does make bland Sci-fi designs. Have you had a look at the Taurox? Have you had a look at the Rhino? Have you ever stopped to take a little gander at the sentinel models? Have you ever taken a second to stop and think "What kind of heinleinian bs am I playing with right now?"

If you'd proposed the opposite, that the guns need to be more outlandish and detached from reality, I wouldn't tell you that you're ruining 40k, because you wouldn't be. IT would be your opinion and nothing else, so stop trying to impose your world views on me.

**Plumbumbarum**

Scipio Africanus wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:No it doesn't piss me off. Congratulations on nitpicking about realism in a setting that is made ridiculous on purpose so for example this guy can have exactly 2 other guys up there:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-PL/Grey-Knights-Inquisitor-Karamazov

Take that uber nerdy bs to Star Trek and stop ruining 40k, I cringe at the thought GW could listen and start making bland sf designs because hur dur it couldn't walk how does it shoot etc. Stormraven looks like crap not because it wouldn't fly but because it is overly boxy, it would look like crap being a car, building or whatever. Helldrake looks bad because it looks kiddish/ fantasyish/ crap/ toylike/ too nice for chaos etc. If it's cool grim and dark, it's ok and no realism is required, or wanted.

WHO CARES?!

Clearly I care. And the fact that I used capitals? Kinda suggests I was having a joke.

Congratulations on turning a fun thread about making fun of GW's Design ideals and turning it into a YOU'RE THE REASON RIPTIDES thread. This was never meant to be a serious thread, and I'm rather annoyed that you decided to take it as one. Step away from your PC, Calm your raging nerd boner and accept that we're all uber nerds here, because we play games in the most nerdy way possible.

GW already does make bland Sci-fi designs. Have you had a look at the Taurox? Have you had a look at the Rhino? Have you ever stopped to take a little gander at the sentinel models? Have you ever taken a second to stop and think "What kind of heinleinian bs am I playing with right now?"

If you'd proposed the opposite, that the guns need to be more outlandish and detached from reality, I wouldn't tell you that you're ruining 40k, because you wouldn't be. IT would be your opinion and nothing else, so stop trying to impose your world views on me.

Taurox is utter crap, rhino is ok, well, almost. Yes possibly we are all uber nerds whatever that crap means, I despise the sweeping generalisations like nerd etc it's just the language of the stupid. Still was fun to use it in actual conversation heh.

Nerd boner that's new though.

Don't take this personaly btw, I didn't even know that you are both the OP and the capital letters guy, I was talking to the realism brigade in general. Now, reading the OP it looks like it was meant to be a serious thread though, as much as a thread about 40k can be serious ofc. But whatever you say, I'm a predominantely drunk person so mistakes on my side are bound to happen.

Now, if I was saying that guns need to be more outlandish, I could be right. If someone is saying guns should be more realistic, I say they are wrong, potentialy ruin 40k and do not get the idea, sorry. Yes opinion but a better one heh.

**Scipio Africanus**

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Scipio Africanus wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:No it doesn't piss me off. Congratulations on nitpicking about realism in a setting that is made ridiculous on purpose so for example this guy can have exactly 2 other guys up there:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-PL/Grey-Knights-Inquisitor-Karamazov

Take that uber nerdy bs to Star Trek and stop ruining 40k, I cringe at the thought GW could listen and start making bland sf designs because hur dur it couldn't walk how does it shoot etc. Stormraven looks like crap not because it wouldn't fly but because it is overly boxy, it would look like crap being a car, building or whatever. Helldrake looks bad because it looks kiddish/ fantasyish/ crap/ toylike/ too nice for chaos etc. If it's cool grim and dark, it's ok and no realism is required, or wanted.

WHO CARES?!

Clearly I care. And the fact that I used capitals? Kinda suggests I was having a joke.

Congratulations on turning a fun thread about making fun of GW's Design ideals and turning it into a YOU'RE THE REASON RIPTIDES thread. This was never meant to be a serious thread, and I'm rather annoyed that you decided to take it as one. Step away from your PC, Calm your raging nerd boner and accept that we're all uber nerds here, because we play games in the most nerdy way possible.

GW already does make bland Sci-fi designs. Have you had a look at the Taurox? Have you had a look at the Rhino? Have you ever stopped to take a little gander at the sentinel models? Have you ever taken a second to stop and think "What kind of heinleinian bs am I playing with right now?"

If you'd proposed the opposite, that the guns need to be more outlandish and detached from reality, I wouldn't tell you that you're ruining 40k, because you wouldn't be. IT would be your opinion and nothing else, so stop trying to impose your world views on me.

Taurox is utter crap, rhino is ok, well, almost. Yes possibly we are all uber nerds whatever that crap means, I despise the sweeping generalisations like nerd etc it's just the language of the stupid. Still was fun to use it in actual conversation heh.

Nerd boner that's new though.

Don't take this personaly btw, I didn't even know that you are both the OP and the capital letters guy, I was talking to the realism brigade in general. Now, reading the OP it looks like it was meant to be a serious thread though, as much as a thread about 40k can be serious ofc. But whatever you say, I'm a predominantely drunk person so mistakes on my side are bound to happen.

Now, if I was saying that guns need to be more outlandish, I could be right. If someone is saying guns should be more realistic, I say they are wrong, potentialy ruin 40k and do not get the idea, sorry. Yes opinion but a better one heh.

Also the Capital letters thing was in reference to one of the cutaways someone brought up. It was more the 'thoughts' of the cutaway designer, than nerdrage.

**viewfinder**

I'm just mature enough to realize what this game is: a game. The tanks look cool, that's all I care about. if someone gets their professional expert in balkistics underwear in a twist, they may have found the wrong hobby.

**wallygator**

what? the tanks look cool? please...
Most of the gw tanks looks like lunchboxes on tracks. Tanks just look alot better with long barrels.
look at basilisk or shadowsword. those vehicles are cool. a nice tank-look with a impressive canon mounted!
i think that the other vehicles with mortar-like barrels just look stupid. But that's just my thought about it

**viewfinder**

wallygator wrote:
what? the tanks look cool? please...
Most of the gw tanks looks like lunchboxes on tracks. Tanks just look alot better with long barrels.
look at basilisk or shadowsword. those vehicles are cool. a nice tank-look with a impressive canon mounted!
i think that the other vehicles with mortar-like barrels just look stupid. But that's just my thought about it

exactly.

**TheCustomLime**

viewfinder wrote:
I'm just mature enough to realize what this game is: a game. The tanks look cool, that's all I care about. if someone gets their professional expert in balkistics underwear in a twist, they may have found the wrong hobby.

If you don't like these sort of discussions you are not obliged to read them. They are a enjoyable exercise in rationalizing the weird designs of the Imperium. Or at least taking the piss out of them.

**viewfinder**

TheCustomLime wrote:
viewfinder wrote:
I'm just mature enough to realize what this game is: a game. The tanks look cool, that's all I care about. if someone gets their professional expert in balkistics underwear in a twist, they may have found the wrong hobby.

If you don't like these sort of discussions you are not obliged to read them. They are a enjoyable exercise in rationalizing the weird designs of the Imperium. Or at least taking the piss out of them.

not exactly. there's a big difference between asking "how does a demolisher cannon work with such a short barrel?" and " Does the way GW think Barrel length works piss anyone else off?" one is a question looking to advance a conversation, the other is a "GW sucks" thread.

**Squigsquasher**

Meh. GW tanks are all ridiculously unrealistic. It's no secret that GW designer's biggest priority is making the models look cool. Certainly above of being realistic workable machines. Heck, in the Spearhead issue they outright stated that the Leman Russ was designed to look backwards and impractical, not even having sloped armour, to get across the image of an empire that has forsaken innovation completely.

But then, if we wanted realism we wouldn't be playing 40K. We play 40K because we want 1-tonne armoured superhuman with automatic grenade launchers fighting psychic crustacean abominations who spit acidic maggots and tear apart tanks with their bare claws.

**Scipio Africanus**

viewfinder wrote:

not exactly. there's a big difference between asking "how does a demolisher cannon work with such a short barrel?" and " Does the way GW think Barrel length works piss anyone else off?" one is a question looking to advance a conversation, the other is a "GW sucks" thread.

I'm closer to a white knight in a lot of ways, I just want my tank destroyers to have smaller profiles and more realistic cannons.