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.

I'm currently planning around a Fortification including a Baneblade turret. I have all the parts needed for a Baneblade/Hellhammer turret and am currently torn which one of the structures in the back of the turret makes more sense. The Hellhammer one is "short" and has a Lasgun sticking out, the Baneblade one is much longer. Does anybody know (or has an educated guess) what the enlarged structure in the back of the baneblade turret is for? So what's inside?

Edit: to specify: I'm interested in the fluffy function of both turret layouts to decided which one would be the more sensible for a turret emplacement.

Based on modern/historical tank design it's a turret bustle used for storage. Whether its for storing ready shells/autoloader or for crew.kit or for the radio and other tank works bits will.depend on the kind of tank.

Not sure if there is a formal GW technical diagram that gives it their official purpose.

To answer your other question, a single lasgun is a pitiful close defence weapon, and therefore.not even worth considering.

However, for a fixed bunker with an internal crane system.and and decently designed magazine below, free of the constraints of needing to design a movable and effective armoured vehicle, then you might be better off losing the bustle to make the target as small.asnpossible.

Alternatively, maybe you want the magazine to be external to protect the crew.amd the equipment inside the bunker in case the magazine is breached. Blow out panels and.suchlike.

So basically, which do.you order the look of

I think its munitions. There are blow out panels on top of it, and the Leman Russ has the same structure for presumably the same purpose. You wouldn't need the defense lasgun, so go with the baneblade's.

I wouldn't remove it though, because it would be structurally part of the turret and have access doors from it into the turret from inside, so if the turret was lifted off and cemented into the ground, they wouldn't cut it off even if a new ammo handli g system from before were rigged

This guy did an internal setup on a Stormhammer. More images can be found on Google. Bit different setup from the Baneblade but hopefully could provide inspiration.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine is bang on the money, so to speak.

Thanks already for all the feedback. I guess I will choose the Baneblade variant then, after sleeping about it I think it looks better. One related question:

I got my parts from a bits-shop and got 9 of the hull viewports in the package. That was enough to put them to the front and sides of the upper hull, but there are two spots at the back of the turret plate, directed towards the engine deck that seem as they are intended to also house viewports. Yet the few images I found of the Baneblade online that were shot from this direction these are empty too. Any idea what is intended to go there in the original model?

I wondered that too, and I have no idea.

As for turrets, 40k turret designs are hot garbage. There's no room for the breech let alone the crew as well!
I added on the larger bustle to mine, as it makes the turret look a lot roomier and more reasonable.

The Baneblade's turret is comparatively not-bad next to the Leman Russ, Chimera, or Hellhound turrets. It's much larger, so there's at least enough space for the crew to fit inside the tank without intersecting the breech of the gun.

 Flinty wrote:
...a single lasgun is a pitiful close defence weapon, and therefore.not even worth considering.

I always stick heavy stubbers on things.

I have another question regarding the right "command" cupola on the turret. Are these:

meant to be periscopes? It looks a bit like the cupola is artificially set higher and I asked myself if this is meant to allow the commander a 360° view with closed hatch.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I have another question regarding the right "command" cupola on the turret. Are these:

meant to be periscopes? It looks a bit like the cupola is artificially set higher and I asked myself if this is meant to allow the commander a 360° view with closed hatch.

They certainly look like episcopes to allow the crew commander to see out when buttoned-up (or with his head down).

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I have another question regarding the right "command" cupola on the turret. Are these:

meant to be periscopes? It looks a bit like the cupola is artificially set higher and I asked myself if this is meant to allow the commander a 360° view with closed hatch.

Yes those are a common feature on IRL tanks dating back to before the Second Great War. They allow the commander a better ability to observe the area around him without exposing himself to enemy fire.

Yes, it's the shell rack.

https://spikeybits.com/2016/08/whats-the-inside-of-a-baneblade-look-like.html