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.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:

tall profiles are a very stupid concepts of tank design

Wrong. Different profiles fit different fighting environments. It's a generalization to state that all tanks need to hug the earth and be flat, "tall" tanks are more common in environment where LOS is fairly important, such as heavy scrublands or forests. Especially for the latter, building upwards rather than sideways allows tanks to squeeze in between large trees in a forest rather than having to try to ram every single one of them.

Low profile tanks emerged from the facts of Tanks VS Tanks combats in the WW2. Shermans were inferior to German standard medium tank of the 1944 is partially due to its tall profile. Sherman was almost as tall as russ. (but Soviets T-34 is vertically shorter than Sherman), when the war ended. the tank design focused on the lessions learned form WW2, both Nato, and Warsaw pact followed that lessions.

but maybe the Imperium is fighting the different enemies or against the enemies with totally different tactics, maybe tank VS tank warfare is less common and number of guns on one vehicle judges the outcome of a combat, or maybe before the Imperium is formed, Armoed warfare had been totally changed to the point that no one remember how tank crews of our days fight their wars. I think in the age of strife (or years leading to it), Either heavy antigrav vehicles or Dreadnought-sized heavy mech (and yet. piloted by living crew rather than being heavy cyborgs) had replaced the functions of an MBT for so long. and tell me how the warfare of IoM unsuits the post WW2 design? meow.

I cant believe a topic has made 11 pages on the merits and improbability of a fictional tank.

To cut the arguments the tank is powered by your hand

it fits only 1 model who pops out the hatch with a bolt pistol/power sword whilst singlehandely crewing the hwole tank

It fires (dependent on dice rolls and scatter dice) imaginary rounds at plastic/metal/failcast models.

 beef wrote:
I cant believe a topic has made 11 pages on the merits and improbability of a fictional tank.

To cut the arguments the tank is powered by your hand

it fits only 1 model who pops out the hatch with a bolt pistol/power sword whilst singlehandely crewing the hwole tank

It fires (dependent on dice rolls and scatter dice) imaginary rounds at plastic/metal/failcast models.

thank you for saying this !

 Ilove40k wrote:

 beef wrote:
I cant believe a topic has made 11 pages on the merits and improbability of a fictional tank.

To cut the arguments the tank is powered by your hand

it fits only 1 model who pops out the hatch with a bolt pistol/power sword whilst singlehandely crewing the hwole tank

It fires (dependent on dice rolls and scatter dice) imaginary rounds at plastic/metal/failcast models.

thank you for saying this !

problem with the internet is you cant tell sarcasm from a genuine comment.

were you being sarcastic? Was I?

 beef wrote:
I cant believe a topic has made 11 pages on the merits and improbability of a fictional tank.

To cut the arguments the tank is powered by your hand

it fits only 1 model who pops out the hatch with a bolt pistol/power sword whilst singlehandely crewing the hwole tank

It fires (dependent on dice rolls and scatter dice) imaginary rounds at plastic/metal/failcast models.

Remind me why you're posting in the 40k Background forum again?

 Enigwolf wrote:

 beef wrote:
I cant believe a topic has made 11 pages on the merits and improbability of a fictional tank.

To cut the arguments the tank is powered by your hand

it fits only 1 model who pops out the hatch with a bolt pistol/power sword whilst singlehandely crewing the hwole tank

It fires (dependent on dice rolls and scatter dice) imaginary rounds at plastic/metal/failcast models.

Remind me why you're posting in the 40k Background forum again?

Because I am bored..

And cant seem to understand how people argue the aspects of a make believ tank in regards to real life. Especially when their wre more unbeliable thing in the 40K universe like the Flyers they use or the description of the way TH or other flyers fly in space were there is a vacum, I meen the manovers they pull defy belief.

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:
Then that could solve the issue entirely. Then the commander really could act as both Commander & Gunner, he can sit in his turret, helping to feed shells up into the breech with the loader, train and fire the weapon whilst commanding the vehicle - at least he'll have one advantage over the French tanks, he might actually have voxsets of some kind to communicate with the crew!

One more thing to clear up; the Heavy Stubber/Stormbolter mounted on the turret (if the tank has one) - when the Commander opens the hatch and starts using it, does the loader take over the firing of the main gun (albeit with a reduced reload speed of course)? Or would the commander alternate? Firing off the pintle-weapon whilst the loader loads the cannon, then he drops down, trains and fires the cannon, then heads back up to his pintle-weapon?

I always assumed that the pintle weapons were remote-control, like the ones on the Leclerc tank nowadays. The guy actually "manning" the gun on the model could do it for a variety of reasons I suppose, but I doubt they would make the commander poke out just to fire the gun at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:
Then that could solve the issue entirely. Then the commander really could act as both Commander & Gunner, he can sit in his turret, helping to feed shells up into the breech with the loader, train and fire the weapon whilst commanding the vehicle - at least he'll have one advantage over the French tanks, he might actually have voxsets of some kind to communicate with the crew!

One more thing to clear up; the Heavy Stubber/Stormbolter mounted on the turret (if the tank has one) - when the Commander opens the hatch and starts using it, does the loader take over the firing of the main gun (albeit with a reduced reload speed of course)? Or would the commander alternate? Firing off the pintle-weapon whilst the loader loads the cannon, then he drops down, trains and fires the cannon, then heads back up to his pintle-weapon?

I always assumed that the pintle weapons were remote-control, like the ones on the Leclerc tank nowadays. The guy actually "manning" the gun on the model could do it for a variety of reasons I suppose, but I doubt they would make the commander poke out just to fire the gun at all.

Maybe he likes to see the look on the faces of the enemies of mankind as he blasts them with his machine gun? Maybe the gunner takes up the commander's chair to fire/load the main cannon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 beef wrote:
I cant believe a topic has made 11 pages on the merits and improbability of a fictional tank.

To cut the arguments the tank is powered by your hand

it fits only 1 model who pops out the hatch with a bolt pistol/power sword whilst singlehandely crewing the hwole tank

It fires (dependent on dice rolls and scatter dice) imaginary rounds at plastic/metal/failcast models.

I can't believe there are tons of pages devoted to the merits and probability of fictional characters. I can't believe that there are entire sections of humanity devoted to discussing the everyday lives of singular people! I can't believe there are pages complaining about how much an author fails at writing rules for people to make play with their mandollies. It's all in good fun, my boy. If not for this I might actually do something productive!

TheCustomLime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:
Then that could solve the issue entirely. Then the commander really could act as both Commander & Gunner, he can sit in his turret, helping to feed shells up into the breech with the loader, train and fire the weapon whilst commanding the vehicle - at least he'll have one advantage over the French tanks, he might actually have voxsets of some kind to communicate with the crew!

One more thing to clear up; the Heavy Stubber/Stormbolter mounted on the turret (if the tank has one) - when the Commander opens the hatch and starts using it, does the loader take over the firing of the main gun (albeit with a reduced reload speed of course)? Or would the commander alternate? Firing off the pintle-weapon whilst the loader loads the cannon, then he drops down, trains and fires the cannon, then heads back up to his pintle-weapon?

I always assumed that the pintle weapons were remote-control, like the ones on the Leclerc tank nowadays. The guy actually "manning" the gun on the model could do it for a variety of reasons I suppose, but I doubt they would make the commander poke out just to fire the gun at all.

Maybe he likes to see the look on the faces of the enemies of mankind as he blasts them with his machine gun? Maybe the gunner takes up the commander's chair to fire/load the main cannon?

RC weapon stations typically lack the precision at range and snappy response comparing to firing a weapon by hand does due to the digital input nature of the weapon control. It's like... trying to play a first person shooter with a joystick. They're also harder to maintain than a typical pintle-mount and take up a fair bit of space inside armored vehicles.

TheCustomLime wrote:

I can't believe there are tons of pages devoted to the merits and probability of fictional characters. I can't believe that there are entire sections of humanity devoted to discussing the everyday lives of singular people! I can't believe there are pages complaining about how much an author fails at writing rules for people to make play with their mandollies. It's all in good fun, my boy. If not for this I might actually do something productive!

 beef wrote:

 Ilove40k wrote:

 beef wrote:
I cant believe a topic has made 11 pages on the merits and improbability of a fictional tank.

To cut the arguments the tank is powered by your hand

it fits only 1 model who pops out the hatch with a bolt pistol/power sword whilst singlehandely crewing the hwole tank

It fires (dependent on dice rolls and scatter dice) imaginary rounds at plastic/metal/failcast models.

thank you for saying this !

problem with the internet is you cant tell sarcasm from a genuine comment.

were you being sarcastic? Was I?

Were you? was i?