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.

Tailgunner wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:There are suspension bitz that have been cribbed from RL-type tanks, but that won't possibly work.

The tracks are laid out flat like a construction vehicle, so there's no climbing ability.

That's probably right, but it's a bit pedantic in a world where most tanks have almost no ground clearance, little or no suspension (and no scope for what suspension there is to 'travel'), and in the case of the Chimera no visible means of propulsion.

The suspension units are based on early tank suspension components. Idler = Panzer III idler. Roadwheels = horizontal volute suspension. The positioning of the drive sprocket and return rollers is perverse, but it's not unworkable per se.

The Leman Russ has considerable climbing ability and ground clearance, although it would bog in soft ground almost immediately, due to the narrow track. The lack of suspension is tied to having a reduced top speed. It is a WW1 design, so those characteristics are largely given.

The Chimera has decent climb and clearance. There is a forward tensioner cribbed from WW1 tank designs, and the engines are in the sides, which means that the drive is at the rear, presumably via internal shaft transmission. It's one of the less offensive tank designs GW has produced - that is, it would take relatively little work to make this a viable RL vehicle.

The Ork Tank idlers are idlers, and not specific to Panzer III. The roadwheels use are similar to, but far worse than, the Sherman design, because they managed to take all of the little travel that was available out of the design.

Tailgunner wrote:

The "suspension" can't work because it's laid out horizontal, rather than with usuable veritical travel.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't work, just that it's primitive. Rather than being based on a modern MBT's suspension, it's based on the horizontal volute suspension used on (for instance) the late model Sherman. It would certainly be a bumpy ride though.

Yes, it's a suspension that doesn't work except for the most minor imperfections of the road.

Tailgunner wrote:

The drive wheel has minimal track wrap, so that won't work for power transmission.

Again, that's being very pedantic. It would turn the track, but it would probably throw a track easily.

IMO, with the sheer lack of tension displayed, it'd throw the track immediately.

Tailgunner wrote:

And there's no track tensioner, so it's begging to throw a track at any time. And then you have the whole bizzareness of the external drive shafts, which have no counter-torque built-in structurally, so they'd be torn off in an instant

For all you know there's a tensioner behind one of the wheels. I can't see these external drive shafts in any of the photos.

OK, then which wheel moves to provide tension?

The drive shafts go from the rear of the tank to the uppermost (drive) wheel. They're the double U-jointed things going to the rear of the tank. There is no way that design is going to be able to transmit the kind of torque for a tank that large and with that kind of footprint.

Tailgunner wrote: All your points really just confirm what I'd observed, which is that it could work, but it wouldn't work well or survive combat conditions. Which means it's not much worse that some of the early tank designs that were tested and in some cases actually used in combat.

If the tank is to only operate rolling forward in a straight line on a concrete parking lot, then sure. But it's definitely not nearly as good as a WW1 British Mk.V. I don't even think the Ork Tank could stand the stress of turning in place.
____

MagickalMemories wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Net result, if you were to attempt to power this setup IRL, the transmission system would rip itself apart before moving an inch.

"Oy! Dontcha no nuffin bout Orks, umie? Dis ere tank'll werk fer sher, coz da Big Mek sez it will! An we all beleeve's 'im too! Right, boyz?"

See? problem solved. : )

Eric

As I've said (twice) above, I have no problem with this in-game explanation.

I do have a problem with people claiming any RL utility for the design as presented.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I would point out that it is well documented int he fluff that orky technology defies rationale explanation as far as it's design and function. Orky tech works because a Mek says it is a proppa build and other orks believe it will work. Anyone who tries to dissect the workings of a piece of orky tech and apply real world logic to it is ignoring this focal attribute of ork tech as stated in the fluff...

Not to mention that this is a game of toy soldiers w/ robots and space men with laser guns, etc. Less qq more pew pew me thinks...

I can't dispute the first part, but your latter paragraph really irks me, mostly because it's a tune I've heard so many times before. "You're complaining that the monsters don't make sense when you're the a wizard throwing fireballs!" A friend of mine actually wrote a blog post on it once.

Thanks for the link! Your friend has some decent insight.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I would point out that it is well documented int he fluff that orky technology defies rationale explanation as far as it's design and function. Orky tech works because a Mek says it is a proppa build and other orks believe it will work. Anyone who tries to dissect the workings of a piece of orky tech and apply real world logic to it is ignoring this focal attribute of ork tech as stated in the fluff...

Not to mention that this is a game of toy soldiers w/ robots and space men with laser guns, etc. Less qq more pew pew me thinks...

I can't dispute the first part, but your latter paragraph really irks me, mostly because it's a tune I've heard so many times before. "You're complaining that the monsters don't make sense when you're the a wizard throwing fireballs!" A friend of mine actually wrote a blog post on it once.

It still begs the larger question: So what? So what if it isn't realistic? Does it need to be to function as a game piece in a game of toy soldiers? It isn't a production model that will be used as the basis's for real tanks. Its a game marker.

It may get the goat of some tread head who likes to quibble about minute details of tank design, but for the average person it is totally irrelevant...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Its the size of a Land Raider.

So is the Macharius.

This needs to be a 2-SP Super-Heavy Walker.

I don't think the Macharius should be a super-heavy. The Macharius is a heavy tank not so much a "super-heavy".

H.B.M.C. wrote:If they do make Knights I sure hope it's with rules better than that.

Knights are single man walkers armed with tank size weapons. Why should they be treated as more?

They were super-heavy in Epic Titan Legions, if I recall correctly.

H.B.M.C. wrote:If they do make Knights I sure hope it's with rules better than that.

No doubt!

I LOVE Knight Titans, and if (when?) GW/FW finally gets around to making them and their rules...

Anyway, the Tank is fantastic! But, like many FW things, too much for me at this point.

Still, if this is what we can expect from FW in the coming months... this should be fun!

It's pretty interesting to see that the Mega Dreadnought is armed like the old Epic Knights were: Cannon in one arm, close combat weapon in the other, and a couple of machine gun type weapons for point defense.

Mind you, a Knight Titan is supposed to be equivalent in size (if not mass) to a Stompa.

I like both of 'em. I don't like the Big Track roof it looks like it's made of car body mesh.

I can't understand why they haven't made a Knight yet.

Teek wrote:Reecius: haven't seen you in a while, welcome back!

Thanks, Teek! I moved and so have been out of the hobby for a while. It feels good to be back.

Nurglitch wrote:It's pretty interesting to see that the Mega Dreadnought is armed like the old Epic Knights were: Cannon in one arm, close combat weapon in the other, and a couple of machine gun type weapons for point defense.

Mind you, a Knight Titan is supposed to be equivalent in size (if not mass) to a Stompa.

Good point - and thanks for the reminder!

We SHOULD be OK, if/when Knight Titans finally 'officially' arrive...

Well, the missus just slapped me round the back of the head
Just pre-ordered myself a mega dread lol.

OK, its cost me having to do a little overtime, but ill happily do that for a new dread
Cant wait for it to arrive in a month or so lol

aka_mythos wrote:I don't think the Macharius should be a super-heavy. The Macharius is a heavy tank not so much a "super-heavy".

With the simplistic nature of 40K's vehicle rules, the Macharius has to be a Super-Heavy. Why? If it's a regular tank it'll either better than the Russ due to having bigger guns and better armour, which makes the Russ obsolete, or it'll have that, but be so expensive that people will take more Russes rather than less Macharius, which makes the Macharius worthless.

Right now the Macharius (and its two variants) suffers from being overpriced. Right now you can get two Russes and they'll more than double the firepower of the Macharius for 10 more points. This Mega-Dread will have the same issues - it's massive, like 'cannot hide it except behind really tall terrain' massive, and can die to a single shot from a Lascannon.

aka_mythos wrote: Knights are single man walkers armed with tank size weapons. Why should they be treated as more?

As Nurgy said, they were the equivalent of Stompas in Epic. GW has sinse made Stompas the same as Warhounds (whereas it was Mekboy Gargants that were Warhound equivs in Epic), but we still have this bottom tier of super-heavies (2SP) that is filled with things like the Brass Scorpion, the Macharius and then a load of really terrible vehicles like the Malcador, Minotaur and Valdor. The Knight and the Mega-Dread fit in here.

Oh, thank Gork Hibby is here to run the thread. It was fun while it lasted...

I'm backing up what you said, and you still attack me. Such a nice person you are Nurgy.

Great models!
But I thought the ork pilot would be "plugged" into the mega dread since thats what the mekboys do with deff dreads.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm backing up what you said, and you still attack me. Such a nice person you are Nurgy.

That's pretty much it. You're not "backing me up", you're using it as an excuse snipe at me and to find a dark cloud in all this silver lining. You know I find being addressed as "Nurgy" offensive, so why wouldn't you expect me to reply in kind?

I ordered a load of the FOrgeworld Vhicles and guns the other week when they were released. I'm not keen on the tank so that won't be ordered.

As for the Mega Dread, I’m not keen on the rules, I think the size of it warrants at least 1 structure point, but more than that, I think it will be a big seller, and as such, Forgeworld will release different weapon arm variants. I’ll wait for them to be released before buying one.

radiohazard wrote:That Dread has just made it onto my Xmas list.

same

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Chimera has decent climb and clearance. There is a forward tensioner cribbed from WW1 tank designs, and the engines are in the sides, which means that the drive is at the rear, presumably via internal shaft transmission. It's one of the less offensive tank designs GW has produced - that is, it would take relatively little work to make this a viable RL vehicle.

I see the drive shafts now - I was looking at it on a small monitor before. And yes that's a crazy place for them. But once a discussion about GW/FW tank designs becomes an argument about the (lack of) torque and track tension, it's pretty much lost its way.

I think we're probably debating a distinction that doesn't make any difference. I didn't suggest that the Ork tank is actually a practical design, yet you seem determined prove that it can't possible work. But trying to argue that the Guard tanks are somehow more convincing is a losing proposition. The Russ and the Chimera do indeed have a track tensioner (that's obviously very important to you!), but they'll still shake themselves apart before they've gone anywhere - the Russ has 2 springs on the side, which don't appear to be attached to anything, while the Chimera doesn't have any at all. The Russ is essentially a caricature of a WWI tank design, although it has all the essentials in approximately the right place. The Chimera is a more convincing shape for an APC, but the attention to detail is actually worse. And it doesn't have an engine ('it's in the sides' was never credible - where are the exhausts, air vents, access hatches, fuel tanks and everything else that goes with an engine? Besides, the sides were supposed to be bouyancy units). And neither of them have a drive sprocket. Once you're talking about the Chimera only needing 'a little bit of work' it's a rather pointless comparison. We could go on and on about this, but it won't go anwhere.

The point is that the designer of the FW Ork tank clearly knows his historical tanks, and simply mixed the components up to make it less like a human design. The fact that is has features such as driver sprockets, sprung volutes makes it look considerably less toy-like than the Guard tanks.

Once again Forge World does what they do best. And here I was hoping to finish my Ork army at some point....

I'm sure the Dread will be a ing pain to assemble though.

But so pretty it might be worth it!

H.B.M.C. wrote:If they do make Knights I sure hope it's with rules better than that.

I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about the FW rules for these things.

After all, Gav said we could just make up our own rules

Am I the only one actually glad to have a larger size walker that is not a super heavy? Am i the only ork player who dreamt of looting a Defiler?

@Tailgunner: the WW1 rhomboid tanks weren't suspended because they were slow, and the Russ and Chimera are the same.

As for the Chimera, I never took the sides as "buoyancy units". There are clearly a set of vents in each assembley, under the large panels that run the length of the vehicle.

If you're not saying that the Ork Tank is practical, then there's nothing more to discuss. Thank you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As for the Chimera, I never took the sides as "buoyancy units". There are clearly a set of vents in each assembley, under the large panels that run the length of the vehicle.

Me neither, especially once Imperial Armour defined that they were engine units. The vents do run right under the sides, which would be unnecessary if they were just "buoyancy units".

Will these be available at Games Day?

Question 1: What is the most sensible choice for someone who has painted less than 20 figures in his Ork army?
I think I might have to go with the Gretchin crew set.

Question 2: If ordered tomorrow, what are the chances of it arriving around the 29th?

Thorgut wrote:Question 2: If ordered tomorrow, what are the chances of it arriving around the 29th?

I'd say not that bad.

The Kill Krusha remind me of a small French tank whose name I forget, LT-something or other, but bigger. I like it.

I must be the only one who thinks the new Ork tank is brilliant.

It's light years ahead of some of Forge World's older Ork designs.

I like their fighta/bomma, and Battle Fortress (the model, not the rules) as well as the new Trukk stuff/mega kill cannon upgrades, etc.

But their older series of gun wagonz leaves A LOT to be desired. They look really lame IMO.

So i'm glad to see these new Ork vehicles. The Tank is just so awesome, I just wish it wasn't so expensive.

The Mega-Dread is great, but I don't even have a Stompa yet, so I'll have to wait before I get it, though I think i'd rather have that tank.

I like the grot sponson rules.