Why are the tanks of 40k so poorly designed?

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.

**King Pariah**

dusara217 wrote:
Bobthehero wrote:
No, they literally say 98mm of Land Raider armor is the same as 300mm of steel, normal steel not plasteel or something made up, normal boring steel

What kid of steel though? Damascus steel, that is seemingly indestructable by medieval standards (and is only outperformed by the highest quality chemical steels that the modern world can produce), or the crap that you'll find in a 5$ pocket knife? The properties of these two steels differ immensely, even though both are just "boring old steel." The former will be capable of surviving battle after battle after battle in seemingly endless campaigns of sheer attrition, while the latter likely couldn't even survive a single scrap without breaking.

The image posted on the previous page states that the 98mm armor of the Land Raider is equivalent to 300mm of conventional steel. Now the term conventional steel is a pretty broad term but commonly refers to steel typically used in construction so I suppose one could say it's construction steel... Which still broadly covers several different types of steel. However, I can assure you that Damascus steel or RHA (rolled homogeneous armor) steel do NOT fall under the category of "conventional" steel.

**Keep**

King Pariah wrote:
However, I can assure you that Damascus steel or RHA (rolled homogeneous armor) steel do NOT fall under the category of "conventional" steel.

If you are talking about armor of a vehicle then you would generally not be talking about construction steel ... that would be pretty idiotic to compare construction steel as armor to anything, as it isn't used as armor...

**King Pariah**

Keep wrote:
King Pariah wrote:
However, I can assure you that Damascus steel or RHA (rolled homogeneous armor) steel do NOT fall under the category of "conventional" steel.

If you are talking about armor of a vehicle then you would generally not be talking about construction steel ... that would be pretty idiotic to compare construction steel as armor to anything, as it isn't used as armor...

Just saying that the image on the first page compares Land Raider armor to conventional steel. Which I suppose is very much in the vein of all that is GW.

**Deadshot**

King Pariah wrote:
Keep wrote:
King Pariah wrote:
However, I can assure you that Damascus steel or RHA (rolled homogeneous armor) steel do NOT fall under the category of "conventional" steel.

If you are talking about armor of a vehicle then you would generally not be talking about construction steel ... that would be pretty idiotic to compare construction steel as armor to anything, as it isn't used as armor...

Just saying that the image on the first page compares Land Raider armor to conventional steel. Which I suppose is very much in the vein of all that is GW.

Which is one source from one source of one facet of GW. Its fictional supermaterial, its values are X, Y, Z, where X, Y and Z are whatever they need to be and variable.

**Bobthehero**

Even if it was RHA, it's still laughably low compared to the Abrams armor

**King Pariah**

Bobthehero wrote:
Even if it was RHA, it's still laughably low compared to the Abrams armor

Indeed. And it makes the usage of the term conventional steel all the more pathetic.

**Grey Templar**

Bobthehero wrote:
No, they literally say 98mm of Land Raider armor is the same as 300mm of steel, normal steel not plasteel or something made up, normal boring steel

And this is something we can freely ignore since,

1) GW is composed of idiots.

2) Fluff shows the armor accomplishing feats which disprove it only being equivalent to 300mm of steel, such as a Land Raider surviving multiple nuclear detonations unscathed during the Rynn's World Disaster and then going on to severely cripple the invading orks by itself with just its Machine Spirit.

**Bobthehero**

Or ignore the nuke one in favor of hard numbers. But heeeeeeeeeeey.

**Grey Templar**

Bobthehero wrote:
Or ignore the nuke one in favor of hard numbers. But heeeeeeeeeeey.

Given that the nuke actually happened, while numbers are just gibber jabber on a page... I'll go with the demonstrated durability instead of what is obviously an incorrect assertion.

**Warpig1815**

Unfortunately, surviving a nuclear blast doesn't mean a tank has exceptional defensive qualities.

In 1952, a British built, Australian operated Centurion Tank (Developed in the closing days of the Second World War and one of the most successful tank designs of the post-war period) was involved in a nuclear test. The tank was placed 500 yards from a 9.1 kiloton nuclear explosion with the engine running and a full ammunition load. After detonation, it was found the tank had moved slighly to the left, the engine had stopped running due to the fuel running out (Presumably evaported in the blast) and it had suffered minor abrasion and the cloth mantlet had been incinerated. The most substantial damage had been the armoured side skirts and antenna had been blown off. the tank was then driven from the site.

The tank was then sent to Vietnam with the Australian Army and engaged in combat. During this service it was struck by an RPG and the turret crew (3 members) were injured, with one necessitating evacuation.

TLDR: A tank can survive a nuclear blast, as the Atomic Tank was, but despite serving for another 23 years afterwards still have it's armour compromised by a weapon with explosive qualities that are incredibly smaller. Explosive power isn't all that great against armour - hence why AT, APCR and APDS rounds are designed to maximise penetrative power over explosive power.

**CT GAMER**

40K is a melting pot of various aesthetics.

Take all the coolest parts of WWI, WWII, mad max, dune, judge dress, aliens, etc.,etc. and mix it together. Then sprinkle everything with skulls and gothic arches for effect.

An army of Rambo clones fighting space orcs with chainsaw swords. Geiger-esque aliens fighting WWI trench fighters. Etc. etc.

And that odd mix of aesthetics is what is so appealing about it.

Land raiders, leman Russ tanks and so forth are cool BECAUSE they are so fugly and archaic looking.

I don't want hi-tech nor ultra- realistic in my 40k.

I want to drive my WWI-ish tank closer to those "Egyptian robot T-1000s" so my guy dressed like a space Hessian can jump out and hit the enemy robot with a civil war inspired power saber!!!

If you don't love that imagery, you just don't "get" 40k...

**Keep**

Warpig1815 wrote:Unfortunately, surviving a nuclear blast doesn't mean a tank has exceptional defensive qualities.

Exactly! A nuke does damage due to the pressure wave and the sudden heatspike. The heatspike is way too short to melt armour.

Wikipedia wrote:Trials with nuclear weapons showed that a T-54 could survive a 2–15 kt nuclear charge at a range of more than 300 metres (980 ft) from the epicentre, but the crew only had a chance of surviving at 700 metres (2,300 ft). It was decided to create an NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) protection system which would start working 0.3 seconds after detecting gamma radiation.

A landraider with "just" 300mm armoured steel equivalent would be a lot sturdier then a T-54

Even if it was RHA, it's still laughably low compared to the Abrams armor

You have read nothing of this thread apparently... It's not designed to be better then everything that exists in the realworld.

**Warpig1815**

CT GAMER wrote:If you don't love that imagery, you just don't "get" 40k...

It's probably rather unfair to say that if you don't love one tiny aspect of 40K you don't get all of 40k. I'm not keen on the Leman Russ, but I like the Shadowsword and Macharius (and the Land Raider for that matter). I rather dislike Logan Grimnar's hover-sleigh, but I think the Arjac Rockfist sculpt is great. I like the Nephelim Jetfighter, but I dislike the Land Speeder Vengeance. I don't have to like absolutely everything associated with 40k in order to like 40k as a whole.

Really, I started this thread as more of an intellectual discussion on the merits and failures of 40k tank design and a genuine question as to why they are as they are from an in-universe point of view - especially when compared to designs of the previous 28,000 years. I certainly didn't start it so that anybody can deride or call into question somebody else's taste simply because they have a different opinion...

**CT GAMER**

Warpig1815 wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:If you don't love that imagery, you just don't "get" 40k...

It's probably rather unfair to say that if you don't love one tiny aspect of 40K you don't get all of 40k. I'm not keen on the Leman Russ, but I like the Shadowsword and Macharius (and the Land Raider for that matter). I rather dislike Logan Grimnar's hover-sleigh, but I think the Arjac Rockfist sculpt is great. I like the Nephelim Jetfighter, but I dislike the Land Speeder Vengeance. I don't have to like absolutely everything associated with 40k in order to like 40k as a whole.

Really, I started this thread as more of an intellectual discussion on the merits and failures of 40k tank design and a genuine question as to why they are as they are from an in-universe point of view - especially when compared to designs of the previous 28,000 years. I certainly didn't start it so that anybody can deride or call into question somebody else's taste simply because they have a different opinion...

Your taste is your own, never questioned it, but you're preferences don't fit the 40k aesthetic. Personally if everything looked like Halo or Infinity I'd have zero interest in 40k.

However the sometimes jarring and illogical mix of pseudo-historical//real world aesthetics is FULLY intentional and is what defines the "40k aesthetic". If someone says 40k tanks need to be sleeker/more hi-tech/ more realistic, then no I don't think you "get" the very intentional aesthetic of the setting...

So to answer your original question: "why are 40k tanks so "poorly" designed? Because old clunking WWI/WWII monstrosities are ridiculously cool looking and the designers wanted an archaic looking tech base for various stylistic/fluff reasons. That's why.

**Bobthehero**

I get the aesthetic, I don't really like it, but there's more than that to the game.

**Warpig1815**

@CT GAMER - Fair enough, but yet again you assume that somebody doesn't 'get' something quite complex, based on a rudimentary text-based internet forum. I fully understand the concept of 40K tanks - they are designed to appear 20th century archaic as an analogy to 41st Century archaic. I 'get' that. Perhaps it's simply personal preference and it's just that I like a little Science, with my Science-Fiction, where you may prefer a lot more Fiction, with your Science-Fiction. Furthermore, if I didn't 'get' the intentional aesthetic of the setting, then why would I bother myself to A) Spend an inordinate amount of money on models I don't like, B) Immerse myself in a setting I don't understand and C) Sign up to a forum to interact with people who apparently don't share the same interest. Plainly I do 'get' the setting, as I'm here enjoying it - I simply disagree on certain finer points.

All in all, perhaps it was an ill-worded question considering it's so subjective and I respect your position upon it so for that matter I'm going to leave it there. We'll agree to disagree.

**Grey Templar**

Warpig1815 wrote:
Unfortunately, surviving a nuclear blast doesn't mean a tank has exceptional defensive qualities.

In 1952, a British built, Australian operated Centurion Tank (Developed in the closing days of the Second World War and one of the most successful tank designs of the post-war period) was involved in a nuclear test. The tank was placed 500 yards from a 9.1 kiloton nuclear explosion with the engine running and a full ammunition load. After detonation, it was found the tank had moved slighly to the left, the engine had stopped running due to the fuel running out (Presumably evaported in the blast) and it had suffered minor abrasion and the cloth mantlet had been incinerated. The most substantial damage had been the armoured side skirts and antenna had been blown off. the tank was then driven from the site.

The tank was then sent to Vietnam with the Australian Army and engaged in combat. During this service it was struck by an RPG and the turret crew (3 members) were injured, with one necessitating evacuation.

TLDR: A tank can survive a nuclear blast, as the Atomic Tank was, but despite serving for another 23 years afterwards still have it's armour compromised by a weapon with explosive qualities that are incredibly smaller. Explosive power isn't all that great against armour - hence why AT, APCR and APDS rounds are designed to maximise penetrative power over explosive power.

Except this wasn't just a piddly little 20th century nuke.

This was dozens of 41st millennium nukes, plus all the munitions in the Fortress Monastary getting detonated. And the Land Raider was inside the Fortress when it happened, it wasn't 500 yards away.

**Bobthehero**

And they fired a blackhole cannon at and exterminatused the planet, too?

**Grey Templar**

Bobthehero wrote:
And they fired a blackhole cannon at and exterminatused the planet, too?

No. Read the Crimson Fist fluff.

Blackhole cannon was an entirely different book, and Rynns World wasn't subjected to exterminates. Unless I've missed some new fluff.

**Bobthehero**

You missed the sarcasm, too, you started off with nukes and now you add a gakton more things going off. What's next?

**Warpig1815**

To be fair to Grey Templar, he is right in the respect of the munitions going off. However, it wasn't many nukes, it was just one.

One nuke malfunctioned and fell back on the Fortress-Monastary, detonating in the main magazine. Whether or not there were other nukes in the magazine I cannot say, but the initial detonation was one nuke going off deep in the bowels of the fortress if you're going the account presented in Rynn's World by Steve Parker. Going from an in-universe point, if it was many nukes how could Pedro Kantror, Alessio Cortez and a few others have survived when they were on the walls of the fortress? If one nuke and the magazine went off, they could have survived (As 3 men did in the Second World War when the magazine of HMS Hood detonated), but if so many nukes had gone off it would have torn the mountain apart and nobody could possibly have survived through any credible means.

**Grey Templar**

IIRC there were several missiles which fell back into the Monastary, not just one.

And I highly doubt the Crimson Fists fired their entire arsenal of missiles in one volley. That would indicate they didn't have an adequate stockpile of munitions, which doesn't make any sense at all. So there had to have been more missiles in storage or getting loaded into the launch bays.

**Warpig1815**

I remember the book as they fire all the missiles off and then one malfunctions and targets the monastary. That's how I remember it, but I'm not going to argue as I don't have the book in front of me to provide a direct quote and I'm going by memory. What I will post is the Lexicanum extract, which I consider to be accurate:

Lexicanum wrote:Warboss Uzrog then attacks Rynn's World directly and during the Orkish invasion, there is a trillion to one chance malfunction and a rogue missile from the chapter's surface-to-space defence system flies off course and hits the main arsenal of the fortress-monastery.

That's directly from Lexicanum 'The Invasion of Rynn's World' page, with no edits. Please not the use of the phrase 'A rogue missile'. Take from it what you will.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Invasion_of_Rynn%27s_World

EDIT: Rogue not Rouge

**Naaris**

Robin5t wrote:
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.

No one is talking about Tau and Eldar Tanks.

These two factions would realistically out perform all imperium tanks - from 1d4chan

Design-wise, it's interesting to note that while the Russ looks like (as the Russ's 1d4chan article says) "A drunken three-way between an old British Mark-V, a M3 Lee, and a T-34", the Hammerhead looks more like the love child conceived after a night of red wine between an M1 Abrams and the U.S. Navy rail gun program. And then the child was spoiled rotten by Grandma Attack Helicopter.

Much like a cold war tank, the Hammerhead is low to the ground with good (if the model is any indication) gun depression (said to be from -10° to +28°) , with a main gun that can be either anti-tank or anti-infantry depending on its firing mode, while being blisteringly fast. Further, its role is more akin to a U.S. tank than a Soviet one, as western tanks were built to take on lots and lots of Soviet tanks at once. As mentioned, Hammerheads are almost always drastically outnumbered by Leman Russes. (Who are the communists supposed to be here, again?)

Tactically they fill the same niche as a modern tank, an element supporting mechanized infantry advancing very, very quickly, and taking out armor while using its machine guns on infantry, and The ion cannon fills a role similar to a Bradley's chain gun by taking out infantry and (if a modern military ever faced power armor) heavy infantry. While it does have rather fine armor, Hammerhead rely more on evasive maneuvers, disruption pods and straight up outranging it's opponents to survive, so it can potentially withstand twice to trice more anti-tank fire than most imperial tanks. The Leman Russ, on the other hand, is a World War II tank and it shows; it's much slower and has a much broader silhouette, but it's bristling with guns and relying purely on it's thick armor, while lacking more sophisticated defense systems.

"Shas'ui, I have spotted the Gue'la tanks sitting on the horizon line, twelve kilometers downrange! Engaging now!"

Three seconds later* CLANG, KA-BOOM! The leman russ spontaneously explodes

**Grey Templar**

Fair enough.

It still would have cooked off all the other missiles that were still yet to be fired, so we still have multiple close range nuclear detonations on top of a lot of conventional ones.

**Warpig1815**

@Grey Templar - Possibly. IMHO I disagree, but if that is the case, I think one thing we can agree upon is that Pedro Kantor's plot armour is significantly more powerful than a Land Raider's 98mm

**Naaris**

The one negative I would say about the Xenos Tanks are that they have highly exposed engines and large intakes that are juicy targets. But if they're over twice as fast as imperium tanks and can descend from orbit or drop off cliffs, jump obstacles and have optics and fire control systems lightyears ahead of the Imperiaum, its a design flaw that can be overlooked...

**Frazzled**

Two separate issues:
Stats and models.

*Stats: Imperium armored vehicles are decent to very good depending on the edition.

If you desire to see how IOM vehicles really rock-look to EPIC. They are very tough with a substantial offensive punch.

*Models: models are designed to invoke the weird steampunkest vision they started with. Plus this separates them from other sci designers who have clearly more advanced vehicles.

**OgreChubbs**

Cost+speed of being built+ cost of replacememt + managing to equip all sectors eaqully.

Over how fast and impossible can we make one to kill.

Didnt work out to good for the panther either..

**SomeRandomEvilGuy**

One thing I'd say about using that Land Raider statistic (and a few other low ones) is that it makes every other faction look bad as well. If even the Tau, Eldar and Necrons struggle to consistently penetrate Land Raider with non-Titan level weapons then a lot of their technology lags behind us too. The toughness of their armour is generally worse than Imperial armour too which would lead to Hammerheads unable to penetrate an Abrams and being penetrated by weaponry far less powerful than the Abrams' main cannon.