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.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

From the book it was of the 'crap, they'll kill me' rather then the 'well this will sting a bit'. sort. Mind you, in the same book Ventris reaches his bare hand into boiling oil, so merely suggesting he's concerned about how much pain it would cause doesn't ring true.

That was the impression I got. Ventris knew the oil wouldn't kill him, but it would burn like all hell - which it did, giving him 3rd degree burns.
However, bullets will kill an SM if he is unarmoured, lasbolts doubly so.

Yeah except Ventris going to battle, which is a lot different than Pieter (the dark hunter) who was attacked by three or four cultists.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

From the book it was of the 'crap, they'll kill me' rather then the 'well this will sting a bit'. sort. Mind you, in the same book Ventris reaches his bare hand into boiling oil, so merely suggesting he's concerned about how much pain it would cause doesn't ring true.

That was the impression I got. Ventris knew the oil wouldn't kill him, but it would burn like all hell - which it did, giving him 3rd degree burns.
However, bullets will kill an SM if he is unarmoured, lasbolts doubly so.

Yeah except Ventris going to battle, which is a lot different than Pieter (the dark hunter) who was attacked by three or four cultists.

Still more than enough to drop an unarmoured marine, says the vast majority of fluff. I highly doubt SM skin is tougher than modern kevlar.

im2randomghgh wrote:
1. Again, you are imagining a target such as a vehicle. Marines are not going to run in a straight line. They can duck, weave, reverse on a dime, zigzag etc. do thing normal 2x2 targets (like motorcycles or ultra-compact vehicles) could never hope to do.

Again, not a huge issue, I really don't think you understand just how capable modern targeting systems are, tank weapons are highly computerized with sensors on the barrel to compensate for everything from wind to barrel warp from heat, rain, etc and are able to hit relatively small targets moving very quickly at very long ranges with very very high degrees of accuracy able to penetrate more steel plate than any tank could conceivably carry (hence why most use weird materials and composite armor and even then it borders on almost a meter in thickness on stuff like M1's and Leopard 2's, and often Explosive Reactive armor on top of that). Even older soviet tanks like the T-62, with relatively short range and long reload times and mediocre optics are highly accurate at 1500m or less and at 500m or less any tank crew will find it almost impossible to miss, and are able to penetrate roughly 300mm of hardened steel at long ranges. The current record for longest range tank kill was a target over 5km away, and confirmed kills at 3000-3500m are not uncommon by any means anymore, with high hit ratios even at those ranges.

And if it's firing an HE round as opposed to an APFSDS or other specialized armor-piercing round, it can miss by several meters (a huge accuracy error in modern terms) and still likely kill the marine (even through the armor from kinetic energy of the atmospheric blast), if nothing else make him airborne and have to endure a hard fall back to the ground where he may get to take another shell just as he gets back up.

As the saying goes, "If it can be seen, it can be hit, if it can be hit, it can be killed".

A 2.5m tall infantryman who is also very wide is likely to have difficulty avoiding being seen and often finding adequate cover. Unless his armor can protect him from atmoshpheric blasts capable of overturning 40t vehicles or from AP rounds capable of penetrating hundreds of mm of armor (which, if bolter fire can penetrate or damage, is unlikely), then it seems that modern tank weapons would in fact be very effective against Space Marines.

Hence why 40k is really more future fantasy than SciFi.

2. Well being able to blow off limbs suggest power similar to a .50cal on the standard setting, and .50cal are a serious threat to vehicles.

only the lightest/unarmored vehicles, stuff analgous to AV10 or less. You aren't going to be killing IFV's or main battle tanks with .50cal machine guns.

Also, they can be cranked up powerful enough to make an exit hole too on most lightly-medium light armoured vehicles. When you overcharge you could damage a tank (since overcharge can crack dreadnoughts)

Since when did bolters have power settings?

3. I admit bolts wouldn't do much to heavy armour, but really any vehicle <45tons would be boned. These are rapid firing, .75 cal armour piercing warheads, which would detonate inside the vehicle after having pierced the outside. Even the Space Marine game let's you demolish most greenskin cover with bolts.

It also lets you fly through the air with and land with precision while sporting the aerodynamics of a rock.

Weight really has nothing to do with what would resist a bolter. If a vehicle can resist .50cal fire, it'll likely resist bolter fire. There are many vehicles lighter than 45tons that will resist .50cal fire. Bolters are *very* fearsome for infantry carried weapons, but aren't firing projectiles equivalent to something like an RPG-7 round or anything.

4. Well the general standard seems to be that not much outside of heavy weapons can damage the main parts of the plate,

Again, depends on author, lasguns can do it sometimes, bolters often do it, in the Ultramarines movie it seemed as though they all had AP3 bolters

but have very limited rubber armour they need to penetrate with a direct hit to the joints. Unless it happens to be a sword in which case it will someone do more damage than lasers and shotguns #40kproblems.

Indeed

5. Not unstoppable unarmoured, but more than capable of taking out 1-4 armed and trained humans, unless they're sororitas/ST.

Depends entirely on the circumstance at that point. Sure in hand to hand combat he'd still be a monster, but in a general firefight it'd matter a lot less with the kind of firepower often thrown about.

6. The Last Detail, a Dark Hunters short story, has a space marine sans armour get hit with a full fusillade of lasguns fire and then get angry and charge the humans who fired at him, and murder their asses.

Haven't read it, what book is it from? It sounds incredibly ridiculous (reminds me of the Brotherhood of the Snake story where a single squad of marines kills thousands of Dark Eldar), especially as we have multiple other instances of marines being killed by much less without armor/to unarmored areas, including mere poison darts.

Vaktathi wrote:
As the saying goes, "If it can be seen, it can be hit, if it can be hit, it can be killed".

Unless FIBUA. (I think the Leo 2 PSO trumps it there) Though I don't like the shot trap under the chin it has. and it's not as good in the open.

While the leo2 looks like it has a shotrap, in reality projectiles hitting the armor don't bounce into the top of the hull or turret ring, they generally shatter or go left/right instead of down, it's actually very well designed ('dem germans know their tank design )

urban warfare makes a lot of things different in many ways, as things are harder to locate/target/identify and there's more considerations regarding collateral damage, but in general, many modern weapons wouldn't have issues with Space Marines the way some think they do as long as the Space Marine could be targeted (e.g. they knew generally where he was).

Vaktathi wrote:While the leo2 looks like it has a shotrap, in reality projectiles hitting the armor don't bounce into the top of the hull or turret ring, they generally shatter or go left/right instead of down, it's actually very well designed ('dem germans know their tank design )

urban warfare makes a lot of things different in many ways, as things are harder to locate/target/identify and there's more considerations regarding collateral damage, but in general, many modern weapons wouldn't have issues with Space Marines the way some think they do as long as the Space Marine could be targeted (e.g. they knew generally where he was).

For some reason, when you said that I remembered that , when Canada announced they were opting for the Leo II over the Stryker, some moron was on TV opposing the move and asked 'And what do Germans know about tank design?" and I rofled

I agree on the marines thing, I was just commenting that the old saying goes out the window in urban combat just because you run into places you can see them, but can't transverse far enough due to obstructions, or can't elevate enough. Then you get to call for close air support or arty and hope they can winkle them out, and that doesn't always worth either, so then the foot slogger's get to go in....

BaronIveagh wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:While the leo2 looks like it has a shotrap, in reality projectiles hitting the armor don't bounce into the top of the hull or turret ring, they generally shatter or go left/right instead of down, it's actually very well designed ('dem germans know their tank design )

urban warfare makes a lot of things different in many ways, as things are harder to locate/target/identify and there's more considerations regarding collateral damage, but in general, many modern weapons wouldn't have issues with Space Marines the way some think they do as long as the Space Marine could be targeted (e.g. they knew generally where he was).

For some reason, when you said that I remembered that , when Canada announced they were opting for the Leo II over the Stryker, some moron was on TV opposing the move and asked 'And what do Germans know about tank design?" and I rofled

I agree on the marines thing, I was just commenting that the old saying goes out the window in urban combat just because you run into places you can see them, but can't transverse far enough due to obstructions, or can't elevate enough. Then you get to call for close air support or arty and hope they can winkle them out, and that doesn't always worth either, so then the foot slogger's get to go in....

Someone seriously said that about the Germans?

Guess they didn't study World War 2 in history

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Someone seriously said that about the Germans?

Guess they didn't study World War 2 in history

Yes, and I blame the American education system.

Vell Herr Doktor Porche, how fast does this new Tiger II tank of yours corner? (answer: surprisingly well, compared to other tanks of it's size.)

Vaktathi wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
1. Again, you are imagining a target such as a vehicle. Marines are not going to run in a straight line. They can duck, weave, reverse on a dime, zigzag etc. do thing normal 2x2 targets (like motorcycles or ultra-compact vehicles) could never hope to do.

Again, not a huge issue, I really don't think you understand just how capable modern targeting systems are, tank weapons are highly computerized with sensors on the barrel to compensate for everything from wind to barrel warp from heat, rain, etc and are able to hit relatively small targets moving very quickly at very long ranges with very very high degrees of accuracy able to penetrate more steel plate than any tank could conceivably carry (hence why most use weird materials and composite armor and even then it borders on almost a meter in thickness on stuff like M1's and Leopard 2's, and often Explosive Reactive armor on top of that). Even older soviet tanks like the T-62, with relatively short range and long reload times and mediocre optics are highly accurate at 1500m or less and at 500m or less any tank crew will find it almost impossible to miss, and are able to penetrate roughly 300mm of hardened steel at long ranges. The current record for longest range tank kill was a target over 5km away, and confirmed kills at 3000-3500m are not uncommon by any means anymore, with high hit ratios even at those ranges.

And if it's firing an HE round as opposed to an APFSDS or other specialized armor-piercing round, it can miss by several meters (a huge accuracy error in modern terms) and still likely kill the marine (even through the armor from kinetic energy of the atmospheric blast), if nothing else make him airborne and have to endure a hard fall back to the ground where he may get to take another shell just as he gets back up.

As the saying goes, "If it can be seen, it can be hit, if it can be hit, it can be killed".

A 2.5m tall infantryman who is also very wide is likely to have difficulty avoiding being seen and often finding adequate cover. Unless his armor can protect him from atmoshpheric blasts capable of overturning 40t vehicles or from AP rounds capable of penetrating hundreds of mm of armor (which, if bolter fire can penetrate or damage, is unlikely), then it seems that modern tank weapons would in fact be very effective against Space Marines.

Hence why 40k is really more future fantasy than SciFi.

2. Well being able to blow off limbs suggest power similar to a .50cal on the standard setting, and .50cal are a serious threat to vehicles.

only the lightest/unarmored vehicles, stuff analgous to AV10 or less. You aren't going to be killing IFV's or main battle tanks with .50cal machine guns.

Also, they can be cranked up powerful enough to make an exit hole too on most lightly-medium light armoured vehicles. When you overcharge you could damage a tank (since overcharge can crack dreadnoughts)

Since when did bolters have power settings?

3. I admit bolts wouldn't do much to heavy armour, but really any vehicle <45tons would be boned. These are rapid firing, .75 cal armour piercing warheads, which would detonate inside the vehicle after having pierced the outside. Even the Space Marine game let's you demolish most greenskin cover with bolts.

It also lets you fly through the air with and land with precision while sporting the aerodynamics of a rock.

Weight really has nothing to do with what would resist a bolter. If a vehicle can resist .50cal fire, it'll likely resist bolter fire. There are many vehicles lighter than 45tons that will resist .50cal fire. Bolters are *very* fearsome for infantry carried weapons, but aren't firing projectiles equivalent to something like an RPG-7 round or anything.

4. Well the general standard seems to be that not much outside of heavy weapons can damage the main parts of the plate,

Again, depends on author, lasguns can do it sometimes, bolters often do it, in the Ultramarines movie it seemed as though they all had AP3 bolters

but have very limited rubber armour they need to penetrate with a direct hit to the joints. Unless it happens to be a sword in which case it will someone do more damage than lasers and shotguns #40kproblems.

Indeed

5. Not unstoppable unarmoured, but more than capable of taking out 1-4 armed and trained humans, unless they're sororitas/ST.

Depends entirely on the circumstance at that point. Sure in hand to hand combat he'd still be a monster, but in a general firefight it'd matter a lot less with the kind of firepower often thrown about.

6. The Last Detail, a Dark Hunters short story, has a space marine sans armour get hit with a full fusillade of lasguns fire and then get angry and charge the humans who fired at him, and murder their asses.

Haven't read it, what book is it from? It sounds incredibly ridiculous (reminds me of the Brotherhood of the Snake story where a single squad of marines kills thousands of Dark Eldar), especially as we have multiple other instances of marines being killed by much less without armor/to unarmored areas, including mere poison darts.

1. Well Know No Fear says that the inertial compensators in their armour are capable of keeping them standing and completely unhurt after having super-heavy tanks moving at terminal velocity yet somehow intact (of BL, you are so full of BS) and impacting on the ground like a multi-ton meteor hit down right near them, so HE is out.

All sci-fi is a form of fantasy. That's why it's with fantasy in bookstores. If you make the sci-fi hard enough, you've killed your plot.

2. You very well could, a .50cal machine gun is capable of destroying the engine of a medium/light vehicle like an AV11 equivalent, and this is still a lasgun we're talking about.

3. Still talking about lasguns on this one. LOL bolters with power settings?

4. Weight is important because it generally has to do with armour plating present. Bolters would be DEADLY to vehicles. It is like loading HEAT rounds into a metal storm launchers, it could take out a tank convoy if used right. These are traveling faster than RPGs, have an armour-piercing tip sharper and harder than anything we could possible have today, has massive caliber and the mass-reactive charge is the sauce for crew killing. The explosion cause by a bolt create a shock-wave powerful enough to pulp internal organs, on humans.

5. Bolters ARE heavy weapons, just not by astartes standards. The were actually a land raider weapon in RT.

7. The amount of redundancy in their bodies, paired with the speed and ferocity with which they could charge into CC, added to their bullet-proof rib plate and instant clotting says that 3 M16s are gonna have a hell of a time dropping him before he reaches them.

8. The poison darts that affect marines are the most potent toxins in the Galaxy. Normal toxins they don't even notice. Brother of the Snake actually says it is considered lucky to be bitten by a venomous snake.

And I forget the name, it was the anthology with the Doom Eagle on the front.

Panzerfaust 3 could easily kill a marine.... 110mm tandem hollow warhead says hi.

im2randomghgh wrote:All sci-fi is a form of fantasy. That's why it's with fantasy in bookstores. If you make the sci-fi hard enough, you've killed your plot.

Putting Sci-Fi with Fantasy is nothing to do with similarities between the two. It is to do with lazy people pigeon holing genres which they actually don't know anything about. Making Sci-Fi hard does not kill the plot, it means you have to actually work to make your plot. I would suggest reading Rendezvous With Rama to see how it is possible to make a science fiction book in which the science is hard enough to shatter diamonds without sacrificing plot.

40K is fantasy. There is almost no science in it.

Saying that Sci-Fi is a form of fantasy also ignores the fact that Sci-Fi of the past is often science fact today. In his various books HG Wells predicted television, lasers, aeroplanes, submarines, ballistic missiles fired from these submarines, the atomic bomb, escalators and conveyor belts along with world events such as World War Two and the forming of the European Union.

im2randomghgh wrote:

1. Well Know No Fear says that the inertial compensators in their armour are capable of keeping them standing and completely unhurt after having super-heavy tanks moving at terminal velocity yet somehow intact (of BL, you are so full of BS) and impacting on the ground like a multi-ton meteor hit down right near them, so HE is out.

Never read it, but it sounds silly if this were true then even 40k weapons are likely useless against them.

2. You very well could, a .50cal machine gun is capable of destroying the engine of a medium/light vehicle like an AV11 equivalent, and this is still a lasgun we're talking about.

Ah, still lasguns then, my apolgies. The ability to blow off limbs isn't something that automatically implies .50cal power. A 7.62x39mm round hits your elbow, your arm is gone below that, if it hits your knee, your leg is gone below that. A 7.62x54 round crashes into your upper arm? It's entirely capable of leaving you without that arm.

AV11 implies generally an APC of some sort, most of which are fairly proof against 50cal shots, at the very least from the front (e.g. where it'd be AV11). Sure, .50cal shots can do a number on the engine, if it's not protected by armor plate and vehicle shell.

Even overcharged hotshot las weapons aren't generally capable of effectively engaging armored vehicles in any representation I can find.

4. Weight is important because it generally has to do with armour plating present. Bolters would be DEADLY to vehicles.

Light unarmored vehicles? Sure. But a current armored Humvee can take rounds from 14.5mm/50cal weapons in many areas and is pretty immune to anything smaller. An IFV like an M2 is pretty immune to anything that isn't an autocannon, capable of sustaining multiple hits from 30mm cannons to the glacis plate, and it's only about 28/30 tons.

These are traveling faster than RPGs, have an armour-piercing tip sharper and harder than anything we could possible have today

What's that based on? Sure they may travel faster with a fraction of the mass and explosive power, and aren't shaped charge specialist armor piercing rounds the way an RPG is, they're explosive shells. As to the hardness and piercing capability, in general we know they'll have some sort of effect on lightly armored vehicles, at best you may be able to equate them to depleted uranium 14.5mm rounds, which are pretty nasty, but aren't going to shred decently armored vehicles like modern IFV's.

has massive caliber and the mass-reactive charge is the sauce for crew killing.

Likely that's already detonated before it can reach the crew, given that "mass reactive" is fancy-speak meaning it explodes on contact.

The explosion cause by a bolt create a shock-wave powerful enough to pulp internal organs, on humans.

Probably not through armor unless they're literally pressed up against it. Spalling might do it, but probably not from such a small explosive, a 30mm autocannon might, but that's an entire order of magnitude larger.

5. Bolters ARE heavy weapons, just not by astartes standards. The were actually a land raider weapon in RT.

They''ve been able to be taken and carried by normal humans since RT, back when Marines were still T3 and only had a 5+sv against lasguns Space Marine versions are a little bigger, enough to make it too awkward to wield, but they aren't on the level of something like a heavy bolter, which even then can still be wielded and fired by very strong unaugmented humans.

7. The amount of redundancy in their bodies, paired with the speed and ferocity with which they could charge into CC

Even sprinting, assuming the aforementioned 30km/h, at anything other than very close ranges that still gives plenty of time to unload. It takes a fraction of a second for someone to swing a weapon at a target, and an assault rifle magazine can be completely emptied in a second or two seconds depending on the weapon.

added to their bullet-proof rib plate and instant clotting says that 3 M16s are gonna have a hell of a time dropping him before he reaches them.

SM's don't instantly clot, just clot very quickly. Their ribs aren't totally bullet proof, they may stop a couple hits, they may not, but a full magazine? Unlikely, otherwise they wouldn't need armor. 3 assault rifles dumping 90 rounds into *anything* is going to shred it. You'd wouldn't have any issues putting down a charging elephant with that kind of firepower.

8. The poison darts that affect marines are the most potent toxins in the Galaxy.

Of which nothing of the sort was claimed in the story.

Normal toxins they don't even notice.

Exactly, hence why it depends greatly on the author who is writing at the time.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:All sci-fi is a form of fantasy. That's why it's with fantasy in bookstores. If you make the sci-fi hard enough, you've killed your plot.

Putting Sci-Fi with Fantasy is nothing to do with similarities between the two. It is to do with lazy people pigeon holing genres which they actually don't know anything about. Making Sci-Fi hard does not kill the plot, it means you have to actually work to make your plot. I would suggest reading Rendezvous With Rama to see how it is possible to make a science fiction book in which the science is hard enough to shatter diamonds without sacrificing plot.

40K is fantasy. There is almost no science in it.

Saying that Sci-Fi is a form of fantasy also ignores the fact that Sci-Fi of the past is often science fact today. In his various books HG Wells predicted television, lasers, aeroplanes, submarines, ballistic missiles fired from these submarines, the atomic bomb, escalators and conveyor belts along with world events such as World War Two and the forming of the European Union.

Don't get me wrong, sci-fi can be hard. There is simply a wall that cannot be passed. When, in order to make their reader understand something integral to the plot, it takes six pages of scientific notation...

You know what? You may be well off reading this article.

B-52 strike? Can marines survive thirty one thousand lb bombs?

Anti tank land mine?

Barrage of 155s?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:While the leo2 looks like it has a shotrap, in reality projectiles hitting the armor don't bounce into the top of the hull or turret ring, they generally shatter or go left/right instead of down, it's actually very well designed ('dem germans know their tank design )

urban warfare makes a lot of things different in many ways, as things are harder to locate/target/identify and there's more considerations regarding collateral damage, but in general, many modern weapons wouldn't have issues with Space Marines the way some think they do as long as the Space Marine could be targeted (e.g. they knew generally where he was).

For some reason, when you said that I remembered that , when Canada announced they were opting for the Leo II over the Stryker, some moron was on TV opposing the move and asked 'And what do Germans know about tank design?" and I rofled

I agree on the marines thing, I was just commenting that the old saying goes out the window in urban combat just because you run into places you can see them, but can't transverse far enough due to obstructions, or can't elevate enough. Then you get to call for close air support or arty and hope they can winkle them out, and that doesn't always worth either, so then the foot slogger's get to go in....

Someone seriously said that about the Germans?

Guess they didn't study World War 2 in history

You mean the bit where they got their arses handed to them on a plate?
Germans didn't know squat about tank design, otherwise they would have built 1000's of reasonable tanks rather than a handful of uber tanks, that were comprehensively out fought on all fronts and turned out not to be as uber as they thought.

What is the greatest tank ever made, the one that has fought more battles than any other, won more battles than any other, in more terrains than any other and served longer than any other tank, in fact is still in service today ?

THE CENTURION

The supposedly crap British tanks design of WW2 has proven itself superior to all comers on all fronts. If you want to know how to build a tank ask the Brits.
Once we Aussies gave them the idea and showed them how to use them they actually did quite well

Magpie wrote:
You mean the bit where they got their arses handed to them on a plate?
Germans didn't know squat about tank design, otherwise they would have built 1000's of reasonable tanks rather than a handful of uber tanks, that were comprehensively out fought on all fronts and turned out not to be as uber as they thought.

This is very silly thinking.

They built very good tanks for the style of warfare that served them well for the majority of the length of the war, which was sharp, fast, violent and decisive. That worked pretty much for 4 of the 6 years of the war, and by the time it really turned around in late-1943 well, Tiger production was already halfway over, King Tiger production was getting the green light, Panther's were starting to be produced in the same numbers as the earlier Panzer III's and IV's, so it was a little late to totally change tank design philisophy. That, and their opponents had an industrial base was large enough that it's not like it would have made enough of a difference anyway. Panther's actually didn't cost/take much more to make than Panzer IV's did, the problem was they could never afford to shut down the PzIV plants long enough to retool them for Panther production without unacceptably stemming reinforcements to the front.

For the style of warfare the Germans had designed their tactics and training around, their tanks worked very well indeed. The problem was that their preferred style of warfare could not cope with an enemy able to outproduce them by an order of magnitude no matter what the design/type (even relatively similar vehicles like freight trucks) over several years when they keep declaring war on more and more nations and opening new fronts just about everywhere in the hemisphere, and even if they had simpler designs, they wouldn't have been able to produce them in the numbers to match Shermans or T-34's, their industrial base was never up to that task. Nor would they ever have been able to *fuel* and supply that many tanks, they had significant problems keeping the few tanks they did have fueled, trying to muster the fuel for several multiples of what they did field would have been impossible.

To say they didn't know squat about tank design is...silly. Their tank designs and philosophies conquered most of Europe and western Russia in two years and inflicted horrific casualties in the closing stages of the conflict. When you look at the total number of armored fighting vehicles lost during the war, the USSR/FR/UK/US/POL/etc lost ~120,000-170,000 from 1939-1945 (depending on if you count rebuilds/assault guns/tankettes/spg's/etc), the germans produced about 50,000 armored fighting vehicles (this includes assault guns, spg's, tanks, armored cars, etc) in total over about 10 years from '35-45. That alone gives a fairly good estimation of their capabilities.

That they lost the war wasn't a problem of tank design, it was strategic blunder after strategic blunder against foes that could vastly outproduce them no matter what. Their failure wasn't in tank design, production, or their use of tanks, it was a gross failure of strategic command and in essence trying to take on everything and be everywhere at once in a way that no military or industrial planner could make contingencies for or plan for.

Could they have designed some stuff differently to get more tanks out there? Sure. Were some designs unnecessary/counterproductive/flawed? Hell yes, but the same could be said of many allied designs as well and that cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. Could they ever have made enough tanks, even assuming a highly mass produceable design like the T-34 or Sherman, to match the combined industrial output of the USSR, USA and UK over an extended war of attrition? Hahahaha no. Nor could they ever have kept that many tanks fueled and supplied. Same goes for pretty much anything else. They couldn't field enough infantry, they couldn't field enough planes, they couldn't build enough trucks, they couldn't build enough ships, they couldn't build enough trains, etc. It was not a problem primarily of tank design, it was, in essence, the brain telling the mouth to bite off more than it can chew while it's still trying to swallow what it's already got in there repeated over and over again.




One will also notice that the tanks in the arsenals of modern armies bear much more of a resemblance to German tank design theory than that of their opponents. Today's tanks are *very* expensive, *very* complicated, *very* advanced machines requiring huge amounts of maintenance with ridiculous amounts of armor and firepower designed to fight just as the Wehrmacht did primarily, sharp, fast, violent and decisive battles and not wars of attrition. Hell, the US has only produced about as many M1's as the germans made Panther's, every "new" M1A2 that's built now (and for many years now) is built using an existing refurbished chassis/turret/engine of a tank that was retired/recovered and stripped, if we lost a third of them in a conflict, it'd take us the better part of a decade to replace them. Not even the Russians are putting out cheap/huge quantity designs anymore, a kitted T-90 costs almost as much as an M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 does to produce (4.somethingmillion to 5-6somethingmillion). Tanks today are designed and built much more in the vein of the Tiger and Panther than they T-34 or Sherman.

What is the greatest tank ever made, the one that has fought more battles than any other, won more battles than any other, in more terrains than any other and served longer than any other tank, in fact is still in service today ?

THE CENTURION

The supposedly crap British tanks design of WW2 has proven itself superior to all comers on all fronts. If you want to know how to build a tank ask the Brits.
Once we Aussies gave them the idea and showed them how to use them they actually did quite well

It doesn't hurt that they exported it to pretty much everyone in the commonwealth and they were never faced with anything that the Centurion wasn't capable of handling, they didn't really face much other than T-55's and a few T-62's usually crewed by poorly trained conscripts The Centurion has proved itself a solid and capable tank for the theatres it was used in, primarily defensive battles and short ranged patrols, stuff like the wars in Rhodesia and South Africa, fire bases in Vietnam and the Golan, usually when heavily upgraded and resembling little of it's original form and almost never in great offensive thrusts. It was always a very slow beast, slower even than the Tiger I and II. And if you want to talk production efficiency, the Germans made almost half again as many Panther tanks in 18 months years as Centurions were produced in 18 years.

EDIT: sorry for off topic post, that just really bugged me

Rubbish, but you're right let's stay on topic.

im2randomghgh wrote:5. Bolters ARE heavy weapons, just not by astartes standards. The were actually a land raider weapon in RT.

They still are a Land Raider weapon, that's why they're mounted on the Crusader in clusters of six per side.
Besides, as you've said before, we can't really take fluff in RT as being representative anymore, if it's been contradicted and over-written by many successive generations of fluff.

Magpie wrote:Rubbish

Way to get in a last word with what amounted to "nuh-uh"

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:5. Bolters ARE heavy weapons, just not by astartes standards. The were actually a land raider weapon in RT.

They still are a Land Raider weapon, that's why they're mounted on the Crusader in clusters of six per side.
Besides, as you've said before, we can't really take fluff in RT as being representative anymore, if it's been contradicted and over-written by many successive generations of fluff.

Indeed, RT era fluff bears very little resemblance to the current game, Space Marines especially have become mind bogglingly more powerful and much different in character than their original incarnations. Hell, the Horus Heresy and Primarch's didnt' even exist until several years after RT came out, Leman Russ was a mere 41st century Imperial Commander, and the Custodes looked almost identical to the dudes from "300"

Frazzled wrote:B-52 strike? Can marines survive thirty one thousand lb bombs?

Anti tank land mine?

Barrage of 155s?

According to im2randomghgh so far, yes, yes, and yes. I suggested a 155 strike with W48s, and he refused to comment on that one, so...

His position seems to be that plot armor is a integral part of SM armament, and therefor we have to compensate for basically divine intervention and Mat Ward level shenanigans with SM able to withstand being trod on by Imperitor class Titans and lift several tonnes without power armor on.

LOL.

He can't argue with a railgun though, even on a terminator< as it is AP1 as far as 40k is concerned

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:B-52 strike? Can marines survive thirty one thousand lb bombs?

Anti tank land mine?

Barrage of 155s?

According to im2randomghgh so far, yes, yes, and yes. I suggested a 155 strike with W48s, and he refused to comment on that one, so...

His position seems to be that plot armor is a integral part of SM armament, and therefor we have to compensate for basically divine intervention and Mat Ward level shenanigans with SM able to withstand being trod on by Imperitor class Titans and lift several tonnes without power armor on.

Of course if half of this is make believe, then plot armor abounds on all sides. A plucky band of humans will find a way to infiltrate the evil marine headquarters/ship/base/massage parlor and blow it up through a combination of luck, skill, sacrifice, and witty banter. The marines don't stand a chance.

Aye, all of that and a large lump of C4

IHateNids wrote:Aye, all of that and a large lump of C4

So he moral of that story is give all the troops satchel charges and antitank missiles. Simple enough.

I say we lure the Marines to walk close to an MRI machine, especially if they have bionics. Any magnetic materials will be ripped out of them and if their armour is magnetic then they'll be stuck to the machine until it's turned off.

(As a reference the Earths magnetic field is 31 micro Tesla compared to an MRIs 1.5 to 3 Tesla, so the MRI is around 50000 to 100000 times stronger)

Then drop 7,000,000 volts through the whole thing. I imagine that would be one dead Marine army.

So, Tesla Coils.

Pretty much any infantry weapon given to western nations will take a marine out...... If he wasn't wearing his power armour.

After that, well, things get a little bit more ambiguous as this thread perfectly demonstrates.

Anything from a thousand lb plus explosives to regular assault are the minimum for killing a Space Marine, sometime even less (strangled by a regular human with a plant, stabbed with a normal sword through the stomach).

Soladrin wrote:So, Tesla Coils.

Aye

Soladrin wrote:So, Tesla Coils.

Dimitri, go warm up my Tesla Tank....