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.

So basically it's a plastic malcador/macharius equivalent?

Meltaguns feel like an odd choice but theyre probably just recycling digital bits from the knight's shoulder mounts. Odd that there's no Heavy Flamer sponsons options, though.

I’m intrigued to see it’s background. The name came from somewhere, and I’m wondering if it might a recently (as such things go in the setting) rediscovered STC, name by Guilliman himself?

It looks cool!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LOV just got an OP massive vehicle, I wonder if this is the IG version

Every army is getting a plastic centerpiece model. This is IG's, like LoV's moon-lorry.

It does seem to fit in with the Guard's previous LRBT model, but somehow doesn't quite do it for me. Too many rounded edges, maybe.

Looking at the tracks…are those blocks of vulcanised rubber I’m seeing, presumably for greater grip on roads/hard surfaces?

Tbh there's nothing wrong with this tank...

But. like essentially all of this release, it's kind of like they took the old models and went "imagine this, but in higher definition". Which is fine. But it's leaving me with a sort of uncanny valley effect. Maybe just because the guard range is so old.

I really like that tank. Not sure the IG needed more tanks, but there are very few actual tanks in the game and it's okay if the Guard gets most of them.
Sizewize it's inbetween a Russ and a Baneblade, right? So not really a new centerpiece model.

Only thing I dislike are the additional stubbers at the front, those seem too much and impractical. They might work if they were flamers to push into some Ork or Tyranid horde.

I don't see the issue with the Meltas. They look a bit like breaching weapons on the Mastadon, although a friend of mine ruined it altogether by calling them "titty-turrets".

I like it.

Tanks for this gw!

I like it. It's a very tanky-looking warhammer tank and a nice visual upgrade to the classic LRBT.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Only thing I dislike are the additional stubbers at the front, those seem too much and impractical

These are literally copy paste of RL machine guns on allied M26 tank...

They still look a bit off. Thankfully entirely optional of course.

The scale makes them a bit silly - but as said machine guns like that were standard in a lot of WW2 tanks.

The real "this makes no sense" is having a hull-mounted gatling cannon.

The issue with the Bow mounted stubbers for me isnt that they have no grounds for being mounted on a tank hull, its just they dont look right, the placement of the both of them so far over and with the jutting nature of the tracks it severly limits the angles of fire on the weapons beyond the already limited angles of fire on many bow machine guns.

The hull mounted Gatling Gun makes no sense looking at it from a strictly Second World War notion, or just from the gatling gun, as there are tanks with hull mounted Canons. ie the Char B1, the M3 Lee/Grant. So in a space future where they have Galtinguns and WWI and II themed tanks, having a hull gatling gun makes sense.

I think the biggest issue with the dorn for me is that a lot of the little things that show that whoever designed it only ever looked at pictures of tanks instead of actually being knowledgeable like the FW sculptors were. This just make it feel... off, compared to any other tank, be it Imperial or Real World.

Take the Hull for example. It's got a lot of curves and gentle edges, as if it were a cast hull:



This is the Renault R35, which has 3 large cast components, lots of gentle edges and curves. However, if you look at the Dorn, while it has these edges, it has bolts on the edges, which doesn't make logical sense if you know remotely how tank components are made. It's either cast, or welded/bolted/riveted, not both except where large components are joined.


Another issue, those holes on the side. These are something many have seen, on tanks such as the crusader or the Matilda II:



However, few seem to remember what they are for. What they are for is to let mud out of the tracks. Mud Drying in the tracks was a serious problem, and these holes were to let it flow out. Did it work? ehhh, it depended. The issue with the dorn's is that they're very tight together, and they only go over about 1/3 of the entire side of the vehicle. Which just makes them seem odd and vestigal.

Speaking of the side of the vehicle, the sponsons, they're tiny. They're so small it doesn't look like a person could fit inside of them with the gun. This is admittedly a small issue on the Leman Russ, but not nearly as bad as on the Dorn.

In addition, the nipple guns, the biggest issue is they extend beyond the tracks, which is a big no-no. Why? Because the tank will get itself stuck in the ground. You want your tracks to be the first thing to hit any surface to prevent this issue. The turret is turned 90%, but those nipple stubbers are toast.

And finally, the turret. If you look at it, the Cupola's extend from the turret edge, which is something you *never* see on cast turrets. Overly complex and angled shapes weaken the metal, leading to spalling and weak points.



Take a look at the Sherman Turret. The Cupola doesn't extend out from the turret hull, the hull curves gently with it to accommodate it, and it's the same shape on the other side. Sure the Baneblade's turret has an extended cupola, but that thing is bolted, not cast.

That's the thing I think throws a lot of people off when they see it, it has all the hallmarks that make it seem like a good design, but not the actual thought or intentional design behind why they actually exist. I'm sure I could find other little things as well. Like the Exhaust being on the bottom instead of the top like all other Imperial tanks.

Given that there are 2 of them, the horizontal positioning makes the most sense to me. Each one gets maximum traverse past the track on the opposite side. Neither of the weapons has the same arcs of fire, but they provide some complementary covering fire. They seem a bit low down, being right on the nose of the hull plating, but that can be handwaved away with them being remote weapon stations or something.

The turret size is nice, in that it looks like you can fit the commander and the loader, without them being bisected by recoil all the time. Also a breech might conceivably fit in there behind each weapon!. Bravo!

I think they have fairly successfully translated a bunch of individual bits of historic tank design over into something that looks pretty familiar to everyone, but doesn't exactly match any one thing. weapon calibres are humungous, of course, but that is such an established bit of the aesthetic, that you can't really change it.

 Irbis wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Only thing I dislike are the additional stubbers at the front, those seem too much and impractical

These are literally copy paste of RL machine guns on allied M26 tank...

Spoiler:

Not quite - they had one not two, they were higher up and a bit further away from the track as well.

To me it looks a bit like one of those Chibi Meng? tanks we use for conversions. The sponsons are pretty poor, but I don't see the sides looking better without them.

Nowhere near the same interest I had to the baneblade coming out.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
The hull mounted Gatling Gun makes no sense looking at it from a strictly Second World War notion, or just from the gatling gun, as there are tanks with hull mounted Canons. ie the Char B1, the M3 Lee/Grant. So in a space future where they have Galtinguns and WWI and II themed tanks, having a hull gatling gun makes sense.

Yeah. Perhaps for this reason the Pulveriser Cannon, while having a terrible name (and the gun barrel probably being too short - while stubbers are too long) doesn't bother me. A big siege gun for stationary targets like bunkers, trenches, etc. Sure, history demonstrates thats possibly not the best tank design - much like sponsons - but the in-universe logic could work.

But a Gatling gun that can't really move just seems like its never going to be aiming at the target long enough to be useful.

It basically succeeds at what the Leman Russ tried and failed to do back in the 90's.

I know it isn't a direct successor or replacement but it really does blow the russ completely away in terms of design and overall aesthetic. Looks great (unlike the Leman Russ, which is completely rancid and always has been)

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
instead of actually being knowledgeable like the FW sculptors were

Eh, no. FW tanks were far, far worse. Example #1, Malcador: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Malcador_(Heavy_Tank)

Turret that doesn't move making it the worst of both worlds, hull that would crack lengthwise on smallest terrain level difference, sponsons that can't fire forward (and clip through suspension), driver hatch making hull paper thin from front (but turret has comically thick slab on top for no reason), no sights at all for gunner and commander, ridiculously exposed extra fuel tank ready to flood engine with flammable liquid, no, just no. It's laughable, the only thing that looks better is grittier paint scheme.

And then there is Malcador 'Infernus' that looks so comical, stupid, impractical, and vulnerable to a single lasgun shoot that anyone whining about tanks looking like toys should be forced to stare at it until they repent

Example #2, Macharius: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Macharius_(Heavy_Tank)

Ridiculously rear heavy with both engine and turret being in the rear (all real tanks have turret in front precisely to balance the engine) making it so front light it would have zero grip on most surfaces, massive hole in front armor for autocannon turret, driver hatch in both front plate making it again paper thin and on top for no reason, tank hull extending over tracks for no reason (what you'd even fit in there??), same turret extension as you criticize on RD except way bigger and seemingly not attached at all, complete lack of driving wheels (how it even moves the tracks?) not that it matters as it won't go anywhere thanks to front load issue, sponsons that due to dumb cut in manage to both be huge and have far less room inside than RD ones, etc, etc, it's just as bad.

Extra shout to Macharius 'Omega', which at least has stupid hole in front armour plugged, turret and gun moved slightly forward so it looks a bit less ridiculously unbalanced, and superstructure that actually has some space inside above the tracks - it's glorified hastily put together hack job of a self-propelled gun and yet it manages to look much better and make more sense than base variant, go figure.

However, if you look at the Dorn, while it has these edges, it has bolts on the edges, which doesn't make logical sense if you know remotely how tank components are made. It's either cast, or welded/bolted/riveted, not both except where large components are joined.

To be fair, if WW1/2 designers had access to lasers, they would be able to make much more complicated shapes. Making cast, simple shape turret that is then cut to fit all the extra equipment boxes riveted on makes much more sense than trying complex shape if you can do it economically.

Rivets everywhere are harder to handwave but it might be for riveting cast parts to internal frame that holds it together. Multiple modern vehicles are made this way (albeit welded, not riveted), why not this tank?

Speaking of the side of the vehicle, the sponsons, they're tiny. They're so small it doesn't look like a person could fit inside of them with the gun. This is admittedly a small issue on the Leman Russ, but not nearly as bad as on the Dorn.

You'd be surprised into how small turret a person can fit. See early WW2 allied bombers. Alternatively, since grimdark, maybe all that needs to fit inside is servo skull or servitor torso, it's not like Imperium doesn't do this already.

In addition, the nipple guns, the biggest issue is they extend beyond the tracks, which is a big no-no. Why? Because the tank will get itself stuck in the ground. You want your tracks to be the first thing to hit any surface to prevent this issue. The turret is turned 90%, but those nipple stubbers are toast.

Erm, no. They are so high that if they hit the ground, the tank is already flipping ass end up.

That's the thing I think throws a lot of people off when they see it, it has all the hallmarks that make it seem like a good design, but not the actual thought or intentional design behind why they actually exist. I'm sure I could find other little things as well. Like the Exhaust being on the bottom instead of the top like all other Imperial tanks.

Exhaust being on the bottom is exactly where it needs to be. It was put on WW2 tanks that way for multiple reasons - first, so water can't enter the engine compartment, expecially when wading through streams or in heavy rain, or more importantly, to make it impossible for enemy with Molotov cocktail to pour something flammable inside setting the tank on fire. It also directs hot exhaust at the ground where it cools and mixes with outside air instead of making a huge column of 'hit me' on any infrared sensors.

How can they make a 40k redesign of a Churchill and not do a Crocodile version? missed opportunity to replace the Hellhound

 Rolsheen wrote:
How can they make a 40k redesign of a Churchill and not do a Crocodile version? missed opportunity to replace the Hellhound

Because they made a Matilda II?

 Rolsheen wrote:
How can they make a 40k redesign of a Churchill and not do a Crocodile version? missed opportunity to replace the Hellhound

Interestingly it sounds like they've even dropped the option of heavy Flamer sponsons. The Catachan Armoured Regiments are not pleased.

I wasn't immediately drawn in by the design. I really like the forge world macharius and this seemed to step on the toes of that tank.

After having looked at again after a few days I actually think I might get one at some point. I think it would make a good centrepiece for a genestealer cult broodbrother force and some of the design cues, like the overhanging cupola and mix of curves and flat panels, fit well with the GSC vehicles. I also like the more practical suspension design present on the tank.

 Irbis wrote:


Example #2, Macharius: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Macharius_(Heavy_Tank)

Ridiculously rear heavy with both engine and turret being in the rear (all real tanks have turret in front precisely to balance the engine) making it so front light it would have zero grip on most surfaces,

It would be heavy in the rear, probably your only good point on the Macharius.

massive hole in front armor for autocannon turret

The entire position is an armored casemate, likely to get jammed? Sure. A "big hole" in the armor? No.

driver hatch in both front plate making it again paper thin and on top for no reason,

Thats because the front hatch is designed off the T-34's driver hatch and likely meant to just be the old style viewports which could be opened and closed. They just left it looking like a hatch I would imagine.

hull extending over tracks for no reason (what you'd even fit in there??),

Engine, Stowage, Extra Munitions.

same turret extension as you criticize on RD except way bigger and seemingly not attached at all

It's called a stowage box. You can see the mounting brackets on the underside of it connecting to the turret.

complete lack of driving wheels (how it even moves the tracks?) not that it matters as it won't go anywhere thanks to front load issue

The Drive Wheels would be fixed in the outdated design for the track runners and hidden from view unless you had the armor off.

sponsons that due to dumb cut in manage to both be huge and have far less room inside than RD ones, etc, etc, it's just as bad.

Sponsons are dumb in general and both follow semblance of the historic designs.

 Irbis wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
instead of actually being knowledgeable like the FW sculptors were

Eh, no. FW tanks were far, far worse. Example #1, Malcador: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Malcador_(Heavy_Tank)

Turret that doesn't move making it the worst of both worlds, hull that would crack lengthwise on smallest terrain level difference, sponsons that can't fire forward (and clip through suspension), driver hatch making hull paper thin from front (but turret has comically thick slab on top for no reason), no sights at all for gunner and commander, ridiculously exposed extra fuel tank ready to flood engine with flammable liquid, no, just no. It's laughable, the only thing that looks better is grittier paint scheme.

And then there is Malcador 'Infernus' that looks so comical, stupid, impractical, and vulnerable to a single lasgun shoot that anyone whining about tanks looking like toys should be forced to stare at it until they repent

Alright, I'm going to address these one at a time. Yes, the casemate on top is a serious design flaw, no arguements there. The hull as per Lexicanum is 9.6 meters long, and the Mark v was only 8m, and the Mark VIII tanks were 11m long, so the idea that terrain is an issue like that is absurd unless it's particularly nasty, at which it falls into the issues all wraparound tracks have. The Drivers hatch is a weak point, but not because it's thinner material, many tanks had drivers hatches that were only marginally thinner. It was a weak point due the fact that it was a separate piece from the Glacis plate and thus a weak spot. If you take a moment to actually look at the thing, you'll find that every single gun spot as a viewing slit, and the casemate/sponson has a periscope point. I'll even point them out for you!



The gunner would simply use the tank's sight, but I'll give you that, I'm not sure where it is. They may just use the russian method of looking down the inside of the barrel.

As for the fuel tanks on the back, we do that still today. It's barrels of extra fuel to be used to top-up in the field.



As for the infernus, not only did real world flamethrower tanks carry the fuel behind them, specifically to protect the crew, the fact is that a flamethrower tank isn't an assault vehicle. It's not something meant to engage anything heavier than emplaced weapons which, most importantly, *don't move*. It's job is to clear out pillboxes, MG nests, and other fortifications that infantry would have trouble cracking open. Most real world examples were armored to protect them from bullets, however the Infernus's doesn't appear to be, which admittedly is a bizzare choice. The gun being in the hull is a somewhat odd choice, but many other flame tanks did the same, so it's not a big deal.



The crocodile's flame projector.

 Irbis wrote:

Example #2, Macharius: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Macharius_(Heavy_Tank)

Ridiculously rear heavy with both engine and turret being in the rear (all real tanks have turret in front precisely to balance the engine) making it so front light it would have zero grip on most surfaces, massive hole in front armor for autocannon turret, driver hatch in both front plate making it again paper thin and on top for no reason, tank hull extending over tracks for no reason (what you'd even fit in there??), same turret extension as you criticize on RD except way bigger and seemingly not attached at all, complete lack of driving wheels (how it even moves the tracks?) not that it matters as it won't go anywhere thanks to front load issue, sponsons that due to dumb cut in manage to both be huge and have far less room inside than RD ones, etc, etc, it's just as bad.

Extra shout to Macharius 'Omega', which at least has stupid hole in front armour plugged, turret and gun moved slightly forward so it looks a bit less ridiculously unbalanced, and superstructure that actually has some space inside above the tracks - it's glorified hastily put together hack job of a self-propelled gun and yet it manages to look much better and make more sense than base variant, go figure.

I will concede the engine point, it is a bizzare choice. Next, those are stubbers, not autocannons. Second, the thing is clearly in an armored sponson like every single other sponson on the thing. That's not even a front-forward drivers hatch, it's the driver's veiwing slit. How do I know this? You can literally see the driver getting out of his hatch in the image. Again, i'll gladly point it out to you!



For driving wheels, i could say the exact same thing about the dorn, but I'll save you the trouble, it's right here:



With the sponsons, judging by the angle of the gunner's slit, the gunner for them seems to sit inside the tank right under the suspension which is a.... perilous position to be sure but not an unusual one on Rhomboid designs.

 Irbis wrote:

To be fair, if WW1/2 designers had access to lasers, they would be able to make much more complicated shapes. Making cast, simple shape turret that is then cut to fit all the extra equipment boxes riveted on makes much more sense than trying complex shape if you can do it economically.

Rivets everywhere are harder to handwave but it might be for riveting cast parts to internal frame that holds it together. Multiple modern vehicles are made this way (albeit welded, not riveted), why not this tank?

For one, that's not what i'm criticizing, because they did similar in real world cast designs. Pieces being bolted onto the large cast components. What I am critisising is why there are bolts on the relatively uncomplicated parts that would be one piece. The belly of the dorn (notated in the below picture in yellow) is a particular offender. That whole thing would only really be feasibly made as one big cast component. It's also a giant shot trap, but that's beside the point and all the guard tanks have these issues.

as for the frame, most tanks had only a bit of a frame. the Armor plating/cast hull is the frame, and everything is attached to that. Even then, it's bolted in weird places. Like the gun mantlet. Why does that have rivets around the edges? It's not attached to anything. (Notated in red)

You'd be surprised into how small turret a person can fit. See early WW2 allied bombers. Alternatively, since grimdark, maybe all that needs to fit inside is servo skull or servitor torso, it's not like Imperium doesn't do this already.

Perhaps, it really just depends on if they would invest on servitors for this thing, as even baneblades and Landraider's only occasionally have those.

Erm, no. They are so high that if they hit the ground, the tank is already flipping ass end up.

Look at the image above, in blue. See how far down they are? Due to the Rhomboid design of the tracks they will always be the first thing to hit the ground.



This is a Mark V crossing a trench, and since the dorn's tracks are designed similarly, it will have to do the same, and promptly bury the barrels or break the mounting.

Exhaust being on the bottom is exactly where it needs to be. It was put on WW2 tanks that way for multiple reasons - first, so water can't enter the engine compartment, expecially when wading through streams or in heavy rain, or more importantly, to make it impossible for enemy with Molotov cocktail to pour something flammable inside setting the tank on fire. It also directs hot exhaust at the ground where it cools and mixes with outside air instead of making a huge column of 'hit me' on any infrared sensors

I agree with you completely there, I just find it odd compared to all other Imperial tanks, that's all.

It’s got rivets because guard tanks all have them. I am happy to assume that rivet heads get included in any cast armour plates

That is very ork logic, when in doubt apply more rivits. Does it actually attach it to anything? Buggered if I know. Unless the guard make extensive use of Chobham and rivet it together for re-enforcement. Like Space marine armour apparently needs sometimes.

As for the design of the tank itself? Well I don't like the nipple guns, they should be a bit higher IMO. Or perhaps even as a twin linked point on the back of the turret like you see in the KVs I believe. It would be better than that poor tosser sitting on an exposed firing platform. Guess that guy probably on commisar punishment or something.

Like, who is firing those? The hull gun makes sense, someone is probably sitting next to the driver manning it, but is there someone else underneath them? Are they pedal fired or something by the driver?

Also sort of wish they had some sort of sight or lens on the sponson guns, so we know how those gunners are actually aiming.

Maybe they are “molecular bonding studs” rather than rivets then.

Regarding the bow guns, they could be fired remotely, alternatively a pair of prone positions tight in behind. Not like the Imperium really bothers about the “oh crap, the tanks on fire” procedure.

Based on the model size, The sponsons would also need to be remotely fired, but so maybe they just make use of the general tank sensorium. The heavy bolters at least have their standard targetter lumpy bit above the barrel.

I think if I can put the main gun in the hull, and the gatling cannon/mini-demolisher in the turret, I'll like it a bit more. Silly in a 40K way, but still moderately practical.