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.

Both are correct in the setting. How a ship is run depends entirely on her captain.

Some create well drilled crews that operate efficiently, others use the toil of thousands of men that have been shanghied into service or are serving because they were petty criminals.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think I inadvertently touched off a who's-biggest-athon. I just meant that that Universe Class Transport was fething huge in comparison to other 40K ships.

Im not sure if that's true,

In Know No Fear, Abnett talks about a grand cruiser thats 12km long; bigger than most Ships of The Line, smaller than the biggest battleships.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, starships might need to dedate larger percentage of their volume on structures and engines as ocean going vessels, but even if the spaceship would have crew per volume ratio only 10% of that of Nimitz, it would still have a crew of about 600 000.

Unlike an ocean ship a starship must carry all the air, water and food for its crew so it would need to devote a lot more of its interior to storage.

Any straight up comparison just won't work.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
And those are sadly not official. They most likely should have been, but from what i dug up people have been fighting over ship scale for ages. GW should have put an official scale in.

I agree, GW should release a background book that covers the official stats/info for ships of the 40k universe. Star Wars has released a series of these for their universe (which has many more ships in it), and they're all interesting reads for sci-fi nerds.

I thought the FW books had real world stats for their vehicles. Obviously they don't have the BFG ships but they do cover the tanks and titan and such.

FW's numbers are stupid and unimpressive.

The M1A1 Abrams has more impressive stats than an FW Land Raider using the old FW stats.

They were stats given by guys who had no clue what they were talking about twenty-thirty years ago.

AND STILL HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

That might be deliberate, if GW tanks performed anywhere near real world tanks there'd be no need to run out and hit each other with chainsaws.

Yes, an M1A1 Abrams tank is better than almost all Imperial tanks especially a Leman Russ.

Or perhaps the GW fluff people just have no clue about the stats of real world weapons and equipment.

If we go by what the 40k equipment is described as doing we can see its far superior to our 21st century equipment.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
That might be deliberate, if GW tanks performed anywhere near real world tanks there'd be no need to run out and hit each other with chainsaws.

See it is always need vs Rule of cool. You can have effective tanks and still have people running around with chain swords. Just as you stupidly have space marine commanders running around without helmets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Or perhaps the GW fluff people just have no clue about the stats of real world weapons and equipment.

If we go by what the 40k equipment is described as doing we can see its far superior to our 21st century equipment.

In this day and age with the internet and wikis, you have zero excuse not to know such things if you are making a game about armor. You can easily find some very good sites with tons of info on armor.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yes, an M1A1 Abrams tank is better than almost all Imperial tanks especially a Leman Russ.

Well, I think the LR has a big advantage in that it can on virtually anything, taking away the massive problems all tank forces face with regards to fuel (even an issue for well-supplied armies operating over distances, such as 2003 Iraq). The LR Battle Cannon however looks like a mess, and I'd give an Abrams the win in accuracy/gunnery any day. Moreover, the totally exposed tracks of the LR would make it fairly easy to disable/immobilize IRL and in general the LR design makes it very exposed to enemy fire and very poor in maneuverability.

But then there's the issue of which is better protected. Is Plasteel better then Depleted Uranium Armor? I have no idea. I also imagine the lascannon of an LR would chew right through an Abrams.

Indeed, I hate GW's lack of research. They obviously arn't proper Nerds if they can't preform some basic research.

Well they do keep putting out the "We are not a game company" Line. But still, you do not need to be nerds to do research on your product.

I myself hate with a passion the look of 40k tanks. They simply can not do what they are meant to do, not even slightly.

Sure they can, they just arn't the best design.

The argument that they would sink into the ground or be unable to mount curbs is catagorically wrong. They arn't going to be the best at doing that thing, but they can still do it.



I would do an overhaul of the GW tank models for sure, but its not as major of a flaw as many people believe.

I am gonna disagree, there are reasons people stopped designing tanks that way, many, many reasons. You would only mount up in a tank like that if you could not armor a jeep

They are supposed to look like WWI vehicles, and that is awesome. The weird retro look is a big part of 40K's appeal.

Well it's a mixed bag. The Leman Russ is obviously inspired by WW1 era tanks and the French Char B-1. Yet the Chimera is clearly inspired by the Soviet BMP-1, the Rhino by the M113, the Basilisk by German WW2-era SPG's. And so on.

 Harriticus wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yes, an M1A1 Abrams tank is better than almost all Imperial tanks especially a Leman Russ.

Well, I think the LR has a big advantage in that it can on virtually anything, taking away the massive problems all tank forces face with regards to fuel (even an issue for well-supplied armies operating over distances, such as 2003 Iraq). The LR Battle Cannon however looks like a mess, and I'd give an Abrams the win in accuracy/gunnery any day. Moreover, the totally exposed tracks of the LR would make it fairly easy to disable/immobilize IRL and in general the LR design makes it very exposed to enemy fire and very poor in maneuverability.

But then there's the issue of which is better protected. Is Plasteel better then Depleted Uranium Armor? I have no idea. I also imagine the lascannon of an LR would chew right through an Abrams.

The FW book described how effective it was compared to milimeters of steel.

Chobbham Armor is better than Land Raider armor in terms of equivalence to milimeters of steel.

 Crimson wrote:
They are supposed to look like WWI vehicles, and that is awesome. The weird retro look is a big part of 40K's appeal.

Not to me, that along with Sm bell bottoms fall into my WTF are they thinking view of 40k. I would so love for a real rugged take design and not crap they use. As always however, YMMV.

Having modern looking tanks would utterly ruin 40K for me. Cadians alrady look too modern for my liking.

 Crimson wrote:
Having modern looking tanks would utterly ruin 40K for me. Cadians alrady look too modern for my liking.

Super modern and able to do the job are not the same thing. WWII ish would have been nice, lower to the ground, less a target, better armored, covered tracks and such, yest still a good look( I am using panzers for my Hellhound for instance). Take a gander at may of the aircraft which have a very distinct WWIi and cold war era look to them. Also to me Cadians have just about the correct look, so it really is a case of taste.

 Crimson wrote:
They are supposed to look like WWI vehicles, and that is awesome. The weird retro look is a big part of 40K's appeal.

Agree. Note how the Imperium's best tank strongly resembles real life's most primitive tank: the mk I "Tank".

If you'd prefer more modern, perhaps you'd like Elysians?

For myself, yeah I did the look of the Elysians. Pity the have few vees, the few they have are nice.