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.

This is a bit of a mix between a modelling, lore and general real world military transport function question, therefore I hope it makes sense to put it into general discussion.

Regarding the front or "prow" of the Gorgon (see pictures attached).

1st: on the second picture it looks like there are two "door frames" the embarked soldiers have to go through. The first one in the hull and then the second one in that kind of giant dozer shield with the ramp folding down. In the model, is there some kind of door closing over the inner doorframe or does this basically stay open?
2nd: if it stays open: wouldn't that put the whole sense of a heavily armored and - according to the FW website - amphibious transport into question if there is a wide open space between the "dozer shield" and the hull which is open at the front? Is there any sensible reason why one would want that?
3rd: the thing in the front that I so far referenced as a dozer shield: what is that for? It's shape does not really look like it is supposed to push anything out of the way, more like it shall push something down or let the vehicle glide on top of something. Is there a reason for that? Is this maybe intended to make it easier to get onto the shore/embankment of rivers? Or do these giant hydraulic suspensions (?) holding it indicate that this is somehow meant to ram something?
4. On that note: is there any advantage (beside maybe air circulation) to leave the top open? From the looks of it the walls are too hight for normal soldiers to climb out and from the pics on the FW website I can see no ladders inside
5. final question: am I just blind or is there no form of propulsion meant for movement in water visible? I can't see any propellers at the back and the tracks have no meaningful profile that could produce sensible force. Or is there something on the underside?

While I don't own the model I'm guessing in reality there'd be some sort of shutter between the shield and troop compartment. I don't have a reason why it wouldn't have a top besides to make a cool model with all the guys inside, but you're right in that it wouldn't make sense in a real-world application, especially without some sort of anti-grenade netting.

In terms of the amphibious part I'm guessing it's not a true amphibious vehicle, but more designed to ford large river crossings at a relatively shallow depth. The reason why the tracks don't look that promising is because it's 40k; it seems FW are just reusing the same tread design from the Macharius tanks.

Isn't this is a WWII sea craft lander with tracks slaped on to it? It is seemt o be, so it should work the same way those vehicle worked.

 Valkyrie wrote:
While I don't own the model I'm guessing in reality there'd be some sort of shutter between the shield and troop compartment. I don't have a reason why it wouldn't have a top besides to make a cool model with all the guys inside, but you're right in that it wouldn't make sense in a real-world application, especially without some sort of anti-grenade netting.

Before that FW one there were two Epic versions - one open-topped and the other enclosed, and neither made sense for a real-world perspective.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
This is a bit of a mix between a modelling, lore and general real world military transport function question, therefore I hope it makes sense to put it into general discussion.

Regarding the front or "prow" of the Gorgon (see pictures attached).

1st: on the second picture it looks like there are two "door frames" the embarked soldiers have to go through. The first one in the hull and then the second one in that kind of giant dozer shield with the ramp folding down. In the model, is there some kind of door closing over the inner doorframe or does this basically stay open?
2nd: if it stays open: wouldn't that put the whole sense of a heavily armored and - according to the FW website - amphibious transport into question if there is a wide open space between the "dozer shield" and the hull which is open at the front? Is there any sensible reason why one would want that?
3rd: the thing in the front that I so far referenced as a dozer shield: what is that for? It's shape does not really look like it is supposed to push anything out of the way, more like it shall push something down or let the vehicle glide on top of something. Is there a reason for that? Is this maybe intended to make it easier to get onto the shore/embankment of rivers? Or do these giant hydraulic suspensions (?) holding it indicate that this is somehow meant to ram something?
4. On that note: is there any advantage (beside maybe air circulation) to leave the top open? From the looks of it the walls are too hight for normal soldiers to climb out and from the pics on the FW website I can see no ladders inside
5. final question: am I just blind or is there no form of propulsion meant for movement in water visible? I can't see any propellers at the back and the tracks have no meaningful profile that could produce sensible force. Or is there something on the underside?

1) I think there's an inner ramp and an outer ramp that both open from their armored doorframes and form a single unitary ramp. I am not sure if this functionality is in the model, but it certainly appears to be.

2) There's lots of reasons to have wide open spaces. Here are 3. 1) Spaced armor is much better against many anti-tank weapons than a solid hunk of passive armor (which is why most modern composite armors include an air pocket). 2) It is lighter for the tank to have an air pocket there rather than putting in more metal. 3) It appears that there are hydraulic pistons (see the top of the metal prow-plate) that attach it to the hull. This indicates that "real-world" employment of the Gorgon allows for some level of reconfiguration of the forward prow, adjusting its height and angle (perhaps to account for different ground slopes or to increase or decrease protection for ease of access).

3) What wouldn't it be for? It's a dozer blade, complete with the hydraulics required to absorb shocks to the front. It's also intended to function as heavy (spaced) armor, so it's larger and thicker than a regular dozer blade.

4) There are huge advantages to open-topped vehicles, with the first and foremost being space. The square-cube law means that as volume of an object squares, said object's surface area is cubed. This means that as something gets larger, its surface area gets MUCH larger. For armored vehicles, surface area is what has to be protected with armor. If you want a manageable weight on a vehicle while its size increases, you have to make compromises, either by making the armor thinner on all facings, or omitting a facing entirely. When we consider thinning the armor of the Gorgon, we can write that off right away, as it's clearly intended to be a direct-assault heavy transport. So we must consider what armor facing can be omitted. Clearly not the front and sides, given that it will be advancing, and the rear is probably as thin as can be without exposing vital components to shrapnel and other hazards. Vehicles need a floor, so... well, I guess it doesn't get a top. If the troops inside get mulched by airbursts or grenades, that's fine. The Guard has more troops. If the Gorgon bogs down because it is too heavy to move with top armor, then the Guard has lost far more than a platoon of men. It's worth noting that the Gorgon's vital mechanical components appear to be armored from above; it's only the troop bay and gunner stations that are unarmored.

5) 40k tanks have notoriously awful track design, suspension design, and ground-clearance. When FW says Amphibious, they probably mean it can ford a river or the like, being sufficiently high and watertight that its tracks can carry it across. I doubt it is amphibious the way a DUKW is, where it's capable of free-floating in open water and swimming ashore.

The Adeptus Mechanicus are notorious for being inspired by archeotech finds but getting things wrong. So an amphibious craft, ridiculously oversized with tracks slapped on and a front that makes no sense is *very* AdMech.

The 'real' reason for the Gorgon looking so weird is that it was originally a minelayer/minesweeper, hence the odd-looking down-angled 'dozer blade' on the front to detect and safely detonate mines. I have no idea why GW later retconned it into a transport vehicle but kept the overall 'look' of the minesweeper version, 'dozer blade' and all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) I think there's an inner ramp and an outer ramp that both open from their armored doorframes and form a single unitary ramp. I am not sure if this functionality is in the model, but it certainly appears to be.

I can confirm that the model has an inner door for the hull of the vehicle, as well as the outer door on the dozer blade.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
5. final question: am I just blind or is there no form of propulsion meant for movement in water visible? I can't see any propellers at the back and the tracks have no meaningful profile that could produce sensible force. Or is there something on the underside?

Theres more than 1 sort of amphibious vehicle, you're thinking of "boats that drive", this isnt what a Gorgon is.

The Gorgon is based on "tanks that drive in deep water", and looks like its largely based on these : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked

Fictional wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
5. final question: am I just blind or is there no form of propulsion meant for movement in water visible? I can't see any propellers at the back and the tracks have no meaningful profile that could produce sensible force. Or is there something on the underside?

Theres more than 1 sort of amphibious vehicle, you're thinking of "boats that drive", this isnt what a Gorgon is.

The Gorgon is based on "tanks that drive in deep water", and looks like its largely based on these : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked

Edit wrong Reply. nevermind

It looks like a Higgins Boat turned into a land vehicle.

https://nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/styles/desktop__1260_/public/main_images/Darke_APA-159_-_LCVP_18%20%281%29.jpg?itok=Idm9NRg8

I know, but the LAV had some pretty thought through tracks with a pronounced "profile" for propulsion. Any real world vehicle with amphibious capability I know has either that, propellers or water jets. But Ok, would not be the first time a WH40k vehicle misses something like that.

As others said, maybe it is more meant to be deep wading so literally driving on the river bed.

Edit: on that note though: I looked again in the wiki where the dimensions are stated as:
13.9 x 8.1 x 4.9 m and 220 tons weight.
So it would have a volume of 552 m², I would assume we should factor this with 4/5 to account for the angled space in the front, which would leave us with a displacement of roughly 440 m³. So it should really swom as soon as the hull is half in the water as it would then displace 220 ³ = 220 tons of water


Edit2: this would also be another explanation for the open top. As was stated before, it significantly reduces the weight, so would keep it afloat.

4. On that note: is there any advantage (beside maybe air circulation) to leave the top open? From the looks of it the walls are too hight for normal soldiers to climb out and from the pics on the FW website I can see no ladders inside

.Your forgetting your lore. this vehicle is primarily used by the death corp as such not only is it a transport it is also used as a mobile mortar position. they set up the mortars inside and fire out the top.

.A secondary bonus-ogryn hate dark enclosed spaces and have to be forced by a commissar to get into something like a chimera or even a crassus. the gorgon however is large and open so they get in without a fuss.

lastly in the original rules for the gorgon the front prow provided the vehicle an invulnerable save. i cannot remember if it was because it was so heavily armored or it had a shield generator.

It still has an InvSv.

The other two points are very good. I had a similar thought regarding Bullgryns, but they can't be included in DKOK normally, or can they? And the thing with the Mortars: would be cool if that worked on the table. Kind of open topped for indirect fire

It has a second interior ramp that folds up. You only get the bottom half but it looks like "in real life" there would be additional shutters to enclose the front of the troop compartment if you were fording water. The massive prow up front appears to be mainly armor as well as a way to push up and over obstacles or as a prow when in water. As for it being open topped, looks cool.

It's definitely meant to be more rule of cool than rule of makes sense in any way shape or form. I have one purely because they look cool, I'm still confused as to how the hell this thing would work in reality

 Pyroalchi wrote:
It still has an InvSv.

The other two points are very good. I had a similar thought regarding Bullgryns, but they can't be included in DKOK normally, or can they? And the thing with the Mortars: would be cool if that worked on the table. Kind of open topped for indirect fire

That was the original rule, back when superheavies counted as stable platforms that could move and fire all weapons at separate targets this allowed it to move and fire it's crewed mortars,