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.

Obviously, these models are thought up by miniature sculptors - not weapons designers. However, if I my job description entailed sitting down and designing a model that is meant to be believably tank-like, I'd at least take the time to spare even Wikipedia a glance at how tanks are actually, well, designed.

My comparisons are made for the Leman Russ, which is the standard battle tank of the IG and the Baneblade - essentially the heavy tank to end all heavy tanks. I'm having to compare them to Second World War tanks, because modern tanks far outclass them in terms of effective armour and speed, but due to still being in service, little information is available regarding their armour. However, you can be assured that the disparity would be even greater.

Armour:

Now my figures are taken to mean 'The armour at it's thickest' - which would be the path of a shot through the hull glacis sloped at circa 30 degrees or through the turret mantle. For the most part, the mantle will be circa 50mm thicker on all of these designs, however (owing to their stupidly high silhouettes) you'd go for a hull shot 90% of the time. So:

Currently, the Leman Russ is figured by FW to have 150mm of Hull Armour. In comparison, the Second World War British Churchill tank had 152mm at it's best point (Turret Mantle) and, whilst a solid, reliable lump, it wasn't the best tank design of the all the participants in the war. Indeed, it wasn't even the best British design of the war - even we recognised that it was more of a 'make do and mend' sort of design. This disparity is particularly amusing considering that the Leman Russ is supposed to have been developed circa 28,000 years later (Great Crusade Era) than the Churchill and in a period of time where Technological regression is only just setting in. Yet for all that, the Leman Russ retains just under the same amount of armour as a 28,000 year old rushed stop-gap design, with a high silhouette and little sloping to increase effectiveness.

Next you have the Baneblade, the most heavily armoured tank the Imperium has produced (Even the Fellhammer/Glaive of the HH has lighter armour) - yet it only has 210mm of armour at it's very thickest point (the mantle). Naturally, the same question remains. The Jagdtiger of the Second World War had 250mm of armour, the IS-3 had 220mm and the Maus Super-Heavy Tank had 220mm of armour. So why is the Baneblade inferior to all of these.

Speed

You've read enough numbers so far, so I'll cut this down - both the Leman Russ and the Baneblade have very poor on-road and off-road speed. The Leman Russ, as a 'Universal tank', 'MBT', 'Tank of the Line' - call it what you will, is slower on-road than almost any MBT or Medium Tank I know of is off road, and is only marginally faster than most Heavy Tank designs. It's 35kph on-road speed measures up to the T-34's 53kph, the Sherman M4A3E2's 40kph and the Panzer V's 46kph speeds when they are all off road. So, the Leman Russ on average is slower than the main medium tanks used in a war 28,000 years previously even with the benefit of a hard surface.

The Baneblade is no better, however it's saving grace is that at 316 tonnes I'd rather expect it to be slow. However, the Leman Russ is only 60 tonnes and the Challenger II of the British Army at around 78 tons can operate on-road (62.5 tons with a further approx 15 tons of upgrade modules) at 59kph.

It seems the IoM (or GW) follows these rules when designing tanks:

A) Ignore 28,000 years worth of common sense and tactics that dictates you try to use cover to your advantage where possible/practical by creating a tank so tall you'd struggle to hide it anywhere outside of an urban area (Which, funnily enough, isn't tank country at all).

B) You then give said tank the same amount of armour as a tank that is 28,000 years older or in some cases less. Of course, you could opt for depleted uranium armouring, reactive armour or any of a host of upgrades - but no, you'd rather stick with plain plasteel. Riiiight...

C) In order to minimise the effectiveness of the armour, follow the trend of adding as many sponsons and protrusions as possible to create handy shell traps for incoming rounds. Any and all sloped armour should be broken up by the addition of outdated weaponry concepts.

D) Finally ensure the tank is as slow moving as possible by limiting on road speed to a trudge and off-road speed to a crawl.


So why are 40k tanks so badly conceived? Is it a conscious decision by GW to imitate technological decay? Willful ignorance so 'rule of cool' prevails (I'd dispute that almost any of the IG tanks are 'cool')? Or is it just plain bad choices and lack of any real thought?

I'd say that it's the latter. GW doesn't know anything about tanks, doesn't try to know anything about tanks, and doesn't give a rat's furry hindquarters about whether or not their tanks are realistic in any way. If they did any of these things, the tanks would likely be far more realistic than they are currently.

Because it's supposed to evoke a sense of WW1/WW2 in space. Hence, boxy, blocky tanks.

210mm of space-metal armor may be equivalent to 750 kilometers of WW2-era steel plate. Or more.

The Baneblade is actually a Light Tank, dating from the Golden Age of the Imperium. The Rhino, and all its variants, are based on a tractor from the same era.

40k tanks are slow, yes. Modern tanks are melted into a pile of steaming goo by any moron with a melta-pistol, Winner? 40k.

A problem a lot of sci-fi writers have is numbers especially if they aren't knowledgeable in the field they are talking about. The FW writing team probably looked up some WW2 tank speccs and based their numbers off of that. I guess they think armored warfare hasn't evolved since 1943. XD

If you want an in universe explanation for these numbers it could easily be that an Imperial meter is not the same as an SI meter.

This is 40k, almost nothing in this universe is really realistic, or really makes much sense.

The answer is simple, it is the reason most designs in science fiction are horrible from a practical point of view (it is not only 40k, just take a look at vehicles from Star Wars or Star Trek):
Rule of Cool

Also, IIRC, the deisgn for most IOM tanks is patterned off of tanks from WWI, the 1920s and 1930s. - most of which could barely keep out machinegun fire or keep up with a running human.

The mature designs that appeared during and after WWII are as a generational leap beyond these for comparison.

@dusara217 - I kind of suspected as much - but you never can tell with GW whether they really are that dumb or it's intentional, sarcastic dumb.

@Psienesis - Steel is steel whichever way you look at it. It's more believable to say 'Oh the armour is depleted-unobtanium from exotic whereveryness' because it acknowledges it's unrealistic characteristics. But to say - 'Yeah it's steel' is just a blatent cop out - we already know how resistant plain steel is and that's why real tanks are using ever more exotic alloys to combine metallic properties into something better than just steel.

Possibly I was just thinking too much about it, but I was trying to find some way I could make a Leman Russ more sensible - but It just irks me that GW are so lazy as to design a model (An ugly one at that), but not even bother to have it make a least the vaguest amount of sense, even from the in-universe perspective of my original post. Thought I'd just see what others thought about it.

The miniature designers wanted to recreate their own favourite tanks, but 1) without having to worry about rivet-counters pointing out their mistakes, 2) make their own adjustments for the sake of coolness and 3) in SPAAAAAAaaaace!.

A while ago there were some rogue-trader era print outs up on a wall in-between Bugmans and Warhammer World. The pictures were basically WWI tanks made from card, but with laser guns for coolness.

The first tank kit by GW, the old Rhino, was designed as it was because they only wanted to tool a single plastic frame, and had limited space to fit the components. As such they had to 'back of a napkin*' design a tank that was essentially reversible, so could be made out of 2 duplicates of the same sprue. Obviously the modern Rhino then adopted elements of this old design.

*read beermat, I am sure


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, OP, don't forget Plasteel and ceramite are fictional supermaterials, that are 'yet' to be invented, but far surpass anything that exists in modern day times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, the IG tanks are psychological weapons and moving cover for the infantry. It doesn't need to be fast, it just needs to be big enough for meat sacks to hide behind and slow enough for them to keep up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TLDR tanks were designed by rule of cool. Furthermore, they didn't want to recreate 'modern' designs of the era they were made, because 'modern' designs date very quickly, old designs are timeless.

You might as well ask why battles in the space-future are being fought with tanks at all, since most of the factions involved could easily nuke a tank platoon into dust from orbit.

If you look at some of the older tanks, such as the first predator, you'll see they did have some 'sensible' ideas such as sloped/rounded armour, less bullet traps and so on (see the forgeworld modern equivalents today), but these were ditched in later renditions as they were conceptually too 'advanced' for the backwards, grimdark setting that is 40k.

I have to say, I now feel like an idiot for having asked why 40k makes no sense - momentary lapse of reason. Oh well. I just figured that there had to be a reason for some of the design choices as most of 40k's concepts have a kernel of truth/practicality in them, but the IG tanks are appalling (IMHO). Nevermind - just ignore this fool

I'm not sure why you think the baneblade is slow - it's a super heavy, which means it can move up to 12" and fire all weapons without penalty.

That's about the same as a fast skimmer, which is pretty damned fast.

@Kap'n Krump - Sarcasm? If not, then I'd say 18kph is pretty slow. That's only 11mph which is just a little above running speed for most people. A man moving at that speed is hard to hit with an AT gun or ATGM - a tank is easy prey.

Here's why, from GW miniature designer Dave Andrews himself. This was in the WD when Spearhead was released.

What's interesting about he tanks of the 41st millennium... is that they're science fiction vehicles, but unlike any you'll see elsewhere. Take Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutely no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays. Imperial Guard tanks don't even have proper, sloped armour, and that's quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed.
The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las-weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel.

So there, right from the horse's mouth.

Actually, 40k Imperial tanks do make sense if your intent is to invoke an early industrial era/pseudo steampunk vibe. The IOM does that at every turn.

A Leman Russ rather deliberately invokes the Mark I Male tank of WWI with a turret slapped on top and an extra gun sprouting from the nose.

You could justify the design as something contained in STCs. In the beginning STC were the best commonly available designs. In the long run STC designs were intended to be built by new colonies with limited manufacturing capability. The result would be simple and functional, not the epitome of Imperial tank design and manufacture.

It would make sense to have the best units, such as Space Marines and Solar Auxilia, to get more advance equipment that was either never fully fielded or even designed due to the Horus Heresy. Maximus Power Armor would be a typical example.

Alternatively, more volatile, difficult to manufacture, temperamental or experimental systems such as Volkites may have fallen out of use in favor of simpler, more reliable STC designs after the Heresy. Advanced power plants, transmissions, armors and hull/turret designs could fall into the same category.

Or you could just shake your head about the retro look of IOM armored vehicles. If you want sleek, angled armor you could always go for the Eldar or Tau instead...

My two cents.

The Leman Russ looks the way it does because it first appeared something like 10 months after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade opened in cinemas:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7mbCVbIyN-8/TaJSQ4_eciI/AAAAAAAABME/MrWTGQIEzZw/s1600/tank_movie.jpg

As for its speed being that of a heavy tank, that's because once upon a time it was: "This heavy tank is the mainstay of the Imperial Guard heavy tank formations." ~ Armies of the Imperium page 61 (1991), back then the Predator was the mainstay of the Imperial Guard, GW later dropped Predators from the IG arsenal without bothering to retcon the Leman Russ's capabilities to reflect its more generalist role.

Don't Hammerheads have a max recorded speed of 70kph as well?

And in comparison, Falcon Grav tanks? Max recorded speed of 800kph. I get that Eldar tanks are supposed to be the fastest of the bunch, but... that's a bit of a bigger speed advantage than you'd initially imagine. Just a tad.

They didn't think the numbers through, I'd say.

Robin5t wrote:They didn't think the numbers through, I'd say.

Seems that's a general trend. I'll admit, the aesthetics don't fuss me a great deal - I can always convert those and head-canon it into a new variant, and the FW Mars Alpha kit is alright, a step in the right direction for my taste. I just amuses me that they actually sit down to write out an IA volume and the result is quite unrealistic even from an in-universe point of view (Of course, compared to real life most of 40k is totally mental). Not that it helps that each author seems to portray each bit of tech in a different way with no thought for consistency throughout all of BL's publications, indeed through out their own series.

If they'd said Leman Russ = 300mm Hull Armour, 500mm Turret Armour made out of Plasteel/Adamantium alloy. Speed = 40kph Off Road, 55kph On-Road - then I think that would be more fitting with how the LR is portrayed in most publications.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You might as well ask why battles in the space-future are being fought with tanks at all, since most of the factions involved could easily nuke a tank platoon into dust from orbit.

Same reason we don't just nuke everything today.

An orbital bombardment is expensive, inaccurate, and it tends to obliterate everything in the area including what you were fighting over in the first place. Planets are valuable, you can't just go nuking and generally blowing them to pieces willy-nilly. On top of this, guardsmen and tanks are cheap. A guardsmen is worth less than the equipment he is wearing, LRBTs can be mass produced by the millions.

Also, in order for an orbital bombardment to take place you have to have space superiority over the target. The ship has to remain stationary in geo-synch orbit or you're gonna miss your target by hundreds of miles, and that leaves it vulnerable to both enemy ships and planet-side defense batteries. It will usually be safer and easier to land troops a few thousand miles away from the target and have them take it that way.

Tanks are very useful when fighting pitched battles with a roughly equal or inferiorly equipped foe. They are weak to aircraft, but that's why you support them with your own. If you have air superiority or at least are evenly matched your tanks can advance relatively safely, as either there are no enemy planes or they're too busy fighting with yours.

Not all combat vehicles are completely unreasonable in terms of visual design. As far as specs go, it's a science fiction/science fantasy game universe, based on the "Rule of Cool" and "heroic" scale models/minis. Things are not meant to make sense in that regard.


Some time back, I found this fun little comparison (from /tg/) between the current base Phobos Pattern Land Raider (which is actually an infantry fighting vehicle rather than a tank), and the real world Abrams family of main battle tanks. I figured that I would post it for the hell of it, since it kinda pertains to the topic.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@dusara217 - I kind of suspected as much - but you never can tell with GW whether they really are that dumb or it's intentional, sarcastic dumb.

@Psienesis - Steel is steel whichever way you look at it. It's more believable to say 'Oh the armour is depleted-unobtanium from exotic whereveryness' because it acknowledges it's unrealistic characteristics. But to say - 'Yeah it's steel' is just a blatent cop out - we already know how resistant plain steel is and that's why real tanks are using ever more exotic alloys to combine metallic properties into something better than just steel.

Possibly I was just thinking too much about it, but I was trying to find some way I could make a Leman Russ more sensible - but It just irks me that GW are so lazy as to design a model (An ugly one at that), but not even bother to have it make a least the vaguest amount of sense, even from the in-universe perspective of my original post. Thought I'd just see what others thought about it.

Its not as simple as "steel is steel". There are tons of different grades of steel in modern use, all with (sometimes) very different properties. Who knows what other grades have been developed for use in 40k.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You might as well ask why battles in the space-future are being fought with tanks at all, since most of the factions involved could easily nuke a tank platoon into dust from orbit.

For the same reason modern armies have tanks even though we can easily nuke entire tank divisions into dust from two continents away?

OP, you forgot adding the weapons sponsons in back of the landraider transport exits. Because why provide covering fire for disembarking troops when you can give them friendly fire instead.

How many Techpriests does it take to screw in a light bulb? At least one to utter the proper incantations, another to carry the incense censer, a third applies sacred unguents, and a fourth offers prayers and sacrifices to the Omnissiah. Oh, and a Servitor to actually screw in the light bulb.

Now, what were we saying about modern battle tank technology?

The Leman Russ isn't that slow... It's about as fast as a WW2 Pzkw 3, 4 and 6. The engine of it also has a very similar name as that of the Tiger.
Additionally, the dimensions of the engine fit very well into the Leman Russ Engine compartment, if the LR was scaled to realworld scale.



Apart from some "wonder-tech" like meltas, plasmaguns and lasguns etc, the IG is basically WW2, mixed with some WW1 and early cold war stuff in space. Just look at the Infantry Voxcaster that is almost as big as a small fridge... It's not "designed" to be technologically advanced. If it was, it would detract from the "grim darkness" of the setting.

 Boggy Man wrote:
OP, you forgot adding the weapons sponsons in back of the landraider transport exits. Because why provide covering fire for disembarking troops when you can give them friendly fire instead.

Which is precisely why I model them with the sponsons to the fore, and exit hatches to the rear.

 Keep wrote:
The Leman Russ isn't that slow... It's about as fast as a WW2 Pzkw 3, 4 and 6. The engine of it also has a very similar name as that of the Tiger.
Additionally, the dimensions of the engine fit very well into the Leman Russ Engine compartment, if the LR was scaled to realworld scale.



Apart from some "wonder-tech" like meltas, plasmaguns and lasguns etc, the IG is basically WW2, mixed with some WW1 and early cold war stuff in space. Just look at the Infantry Voxcaster that is almost as big as a small fridge... It's not "designed" to be technologically advanced. If it was, it would detract from the "grim darkness" of the setting.

Plus while the Imperium is more than capable of producing, and they do indeed produce, some obscenely advanced technology, that stuff is expensive. And you hit diminishing returns.

Sure, instead of making 1,000 LRBTs they could make 10 hover tanks each mounting twin turbo-lasers. But in a straight up fight the 1,000 LRBTs would win, and individually you don't care if they get wrecked. So its a much better use of your resources to make the cheaper stuff you can swarm the enemy with. Especially when the lives of your individual soldiers are a practically unlimited resource.

T34 VS Tigers?

Basically yes. T34, Shermans, etc...

Superior armor and armament is good, but you also need numbers. The Germans would have been best served by flooding the field with Panthers, which they could produce in large quantities.