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.

Having a walking idol to space Jesus is very important when space Jesus is real, is the only reason humanity still exists and is known to cause literal divine interventions.

I'd be interested to see the output of someone attempting to design a tank to have the same weaponry as say, a Warlord class Titan. I mean, there's effectively two large scale turrets with a 180 degree arc of fire, two with slightly less (160 degrees?) and all can fire simultaneously straight ahead without obscuring another turret's weapon.

A tank, meanwhile, tends to have one turret. We see with the superheavies that they plop plenty of smaller turrets onto sponsoons, but beyond hull mounting another large weapon with an extremely restricted angle of fire? It's quite difficult to exactly match the armament of a larger Titan whilst still retaining a tracked 'box' chassis. You'd end up having to adopt some sort of Dreadnought/battleship design with the turrets stacked above each other.

The problem with this is that with the size of the tracks along with all the machinery and crew inside, the hypothetical supertank would now be about half the height of the titan. In other words, it would still be bloody huge. And whilst it might gain some minimal cover advantage from that fact (I mean, come on, it's huge, cover is going to be a minimal factor), it would lose the advantages of angles/height of fire in roughly equivalent proportion.

Our tank would be much more stable a firing platform, but since we're either firing space lazers or magic cannons that our titans don't blow themselves backwards from, I think we have to assume weapon recoil is something long since solved.

Looking at turning, Titans would be more maneouvrable on the spot than a tank this size. The design required to match a large titan's primary weaponry would require tracks and a chassis of such length/width that I imagine the turning arc would be bloody ridiculous. Assuming a titan can turn even half as efficiently as a human, it would be much easier to reposition than our giant tank.

The tank would have a considerable advantage of speed however. Stick it on a flattish road surface, and even being as large as it is, it would leave our large titan friend in the dirt. Tracks and wheels are always more speed and energy efficient than legs in an ideal environment. In marginal terrain a titan would have a minor advantage (the toes and ability to step over irregularities make it easier to traverse to an extent), but any sufficiently rough terrain would really be impassable to both.

The tank is superior from a service perspective. You can stick a ladder up against it and climb straight to the top; whereas a titan requires cranes and all sorts of specialist gear.

In terms of armour, the tank wins that round too. Having a more widely distributed centre of gravity would allow for larger and thicker quantities of armour (should that be desired) to be carried for less energy across a smaller surface area.


When all is said and done, I think I'd rather have the tank. But the titan has sufficient advantages that I could see it being deployed as an auxiliary unit in certain scenarios which the tank might have more difficulty in.

Tyran wrote:Having a walking idol to space Jesus is very important when space Jesus is real, is the only reason humanity still exists and is known to cause literal divine interventions.

Some people are too quick to dismiss this. Faith actually has an effect in the physical plane.

regarding the balance issue, we can't compare them to machines today because they have something we don't. a MIU. this BTW is something every mecha franchise that bothers to think of it has in common, they all use the pilot's own sense of balance to guide the machine.

what happens when it steps on a loose rock? same thing that happens when you as a person does

I think people have a great deal more flexibility and range of movement with their arms. I would suggest that titans rely rather more on gyroscope rather than counter balancing with limbs. Also people fall over regularly on uneven ground.

 Flinty wrote:
I think people have a great deal more flexibility and range of movement with their arms. I would suggest that titans rely rather more on gyroscope rather than counter balancing with limbs. Also people fall over regularly on uneven ground.

Also, look at a warhounds legs. They are not designed mechanically like human legs so there needs to be a conversion in there. A humans reaction to regain its balance will not be what would be the correct motion for that kind of leg.

The Imperator appears to have legs more akin to a human's, though the femur of the Imperator is much shorter than the tibia. So there is going to be issues there as it effectively has its knee higher up its leg than a human does.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You just failed to sum up a titan, tanks are nothing to a titan in the lore, even shadowswords etc. They aren't even in the same ball park. Show me an instance, just one in the lore where a tank destroys a city, I can give you many of a titan. I mean where is everyone getting their info thinking titans are so under-powered and weak... Even in the game they are insanely cheesy and the lore they are even more cheesy.

I'm talking about a hypothetical titan-equivalent tank that would exist if, instead of walking shines to space Jesus, the Imperium made practical war machines. Obviously none of the canon tanks do it because the Imperium didn't build anything big enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
A titans weapons have great range and the titan, standing taller, let's them fire out to further range than a low platform like a tank.

A tank with those same weapons has the same range, except it also has the ability to use terrain for protection instead of being a giant exposed target for everything on the battlefield. In a tank vs. titan duel the tanks win a massacre.

Titans can step over obstacles that could stop a huge tracked vehicle.

Not easily. A titan would actually have very little ability to step over obstacles without losing its balance and falling over. And much of what a titan could step over is probably small enough that a tank could just smash through it.

Also titans have pilots controlling them via mind impulse interface that let's them operate it like their own bodies making them relatively agile for such huge constructs. A human pilot might not be able to interface with a tracked vehicle and operate it like they operate their bodies.

A titan's movement is nothing like a human's, so I don't see how this applies. And agility is about physical shape, how much force the driving hydraulics can exert, etc, not how comfortable the driver feels. All the comfort in the world won't do much if the titan is not physically capable of moving like you want it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
But if we want everything to be practical and fit our universe, maybe sci-fi is not the best setting for your toy soldiers.

You're kind of missing the point here. Titans are ing stupid and this is a good thing. The Imperium is a totalitarian theocracy run by suicidal lunatics, not a rational state making pragmatic choices to win wars. It is 100% appropriate that they pour immense amounts of priceless lost-tech resources into building giant impractical walking shrines to space Jesus instead of practical weapons that would be better on the battlefield. But we can recognize from an outside point of view that titans are another example of the Imperium's stupidity and ignorance, even if we acknowledge that they are cool and thematically exactly what the Imperium would build.

As to range, many titan weapons are energy beam weapons like honking megalasers and plasma cannons. Such weapons have line of sight only firing. They're effective range is blocked by the horizon. A higher mounted laser or plasma cannon will be able to reach further. Itcs sort of like what radio is broadcast from high towers to give it longer range.

As the the mind impulse control, a titan is humanoid with legs and a torso, the pilot can perceive the titan as an extension of his body and control it much like he moves his body. In a real sense he becomes one with the machjne and control it thru thought. That's 40k lore.

See these images for references.
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0434/30/1446510211210.jpg

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0338/88/1407174537644.jpg


Lastly I know a little about physics and engineering, and one thing I know is generally the larger a generator becomes the more efficient it becomes in terms of output vs mass of the generator and fuel consumed. Possibly a titan is big enough to contain a very large and efficient generator that can produce enough energy to run the energy weapons and shields.

You aren't factoring the height of the titan, the horizon would be close to 9 miles away. But I mean they have height so they can carry many main cannons all stacked up and hanging from arms etc. a tank can only have one main cannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Ah I see, though you couldn't really have one. The reason why Titans do so well is their height, they can have any weaponry. A tank can only have a main cannon or equivalent, any others are smaller arms like lascannon sponsons. I don't think you could ever have a tank that has the same firepower. Plus if you made the tank bigger to accommodate extra weaponry there far more problems with it traversing terrain.

Why exactly can't you put a titan's main gun on a tracked platform?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
As to range, many titan weapons are energy beam weapons like honking megalasers and plasma cannons. Such weapons have line of sight only firing. They're effective range is blocked by the horizon. A higher mounted laser or plasma cannon will be able to reach further. Itcs sort of like what radio is broadcast from high towers to give it longer range.

And if the enemy has the same energy beam weapons then they have line of sight to return fire against the titan. And, unlike the titan standing out in the open, the tank can use terrain to expose only its gun and make itself a much more difficult target to hit.

As the the mind impulse control, a titan is humanoid with legs and a torso, the pilot can perceive the titan as an extension of his body and control it much like he moves his body. In a real sense he becomes one with the machjne and control it thru thought. That's 40k lore.

"Legs and a torso" is not the same as human. A titan is very different in shape and movements, such that a person trying to make a titan move like a human would be lucky to walk without falling over. And TBH this would be worse than a tank because it would be close enough to human movements that the differences would be painfully obvious, while a tank is so far from human movements that it would be clearly driving a vehicle and separate from perceiving it as the driver's own body.

And yes, it is 40k lore. It's also the in-universe beliefs about what space Jesus commands. The obvious conclusion when the lore contradicts reasonable understanding of the situation is that yes, they believe that it works that way, but it's just another example of the Imperium being ignorant and stupid.

Lastly I know a little about physics and engineering, and one thing I know is generally the larger a generator becomes the more efficient it becomes in terms of output vs mass of the generator and fuel consumed. Possibly a titan is big enough to contain a very large and efficient generator that can produce enough energy to run the energy weapons and shields.

Again, the same principle applies to a large tank. Anything that can be used to justify a titan, other than its usefulness as a walking shrine to space Jesus, can be used even better to justify a titan-scale tank.

Because its a track with only one of the Titans weapons on it. Plus nothing on tracks could have the same amount of protection as a titan, they have gak loads of voidshields on them. Also their line of fire is far greater as they look over a battlefield rather than through it.

If you make a bigger tank it can carry more than 1 main weapon, and could be fitted with all the kit that a titan carries, on a more stable and concealable platform.

Although concelqlment is a relative term by the time you get to multi thousand ton behemoths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also titans are pretty much a lot of eggs in one basket. Spreading the weapon joy between a wider array of smaller platforms has advantages as well.

 Flinty wrote:
If you make a bigger tank it can carry more than 1 main weapon, and could be fitted with all the kit that a titan carries, on a more stable and concealable platform.

Although concelqlment is a relative term by the time you get to multi thousand ton behemoths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also titans are pretty much a lot of eggs in one basket. Spreading the weapon joy between a wider array of smaller platforms has advantages as well.

Yeah but they are still going to be hull-mounted so its not even in the same ball park. Plus even without a titans weaponry It can stomp everything other than titans under its tracks.

Turrets are only really a problem for something with recoil, so I've never really understood why the volcano cannon on a shadow sword is hull mounted. Maybe they have lost all knowledge of flexible.cables or something.

You could just stick a titan weapon and its whole.mounting assembly on a.tracked base and then you have a turreted titan class weapon on a tracked chassis. If you get 4 of those chassis next to each other then you have a low.slung tracked titan.

Or just use, you know, Deathstrike missiles from an adjacent continent or something...

 Flinty wrote:
Turrets are only really a problem for something with recoil, so I've never really understood why the volcano cannon on a shadow sword is hull mounted. Maybe they have lost all knowledge of flexible.cables or something.

You could just stick a titan weapon and its whole.mounting assembly on a.tracked base and then you have a turreted titan class weapon on a tracked chassis. If you get 4 of those chassis next to each other then you have a low.slung tracked titan.

Or just use, you know, Deathstrike missiles from an adjacent continent or something...

Well how are you going to have a tank big enough for their weapons not to be hull-mounted. Traversing the land on something that wide would be impossible. There are 40k tanks that are titan sized but they aren't that wide they are more tall than they are wide. The Leviathan can only have a fraction of the weaponry as a titan and its nearly as big as some of the mid-sized titans. I mean your idea to put all the weaponry of a titan onto a tank is more realistically ridiculous than the concept of a titan.

Why not take realism out of it and enjoy how unbelievably cool titans are. I mean if you could realistically create a machine that big, have that kind of defensive capabilities and have it walk, like in the 40k universe it would be far better than any tank could be.

I love stompy robots. I just happen to agree with Peregrine that it would be much more resource efficient to have something different. However as has also been well presented, pure resource efficiency is not really something that the Imperium does.

If giant walkers were something that would have a real battlefield utility, modern armies would use them.

Instead we have helicopters which have all the benefits of concealable firepower and mobility, firing guided weapons that mean they don't need all the armour that titans get loaded with.

^their weapons aren't quite the same caliber, however.

Battleships have large calibre weapons, and of course they are the proven pinnacle of all current warfare and are being built in ever larger numbers... or maybe not

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Why not take realism out of it and enjoy how unbelievably cool titans are.

Why not follow your own advice? If you're going to take realism out of it then why do you keep trying to defend titans as realistic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You aren't factoring the height of the titan, the horizon would be close to 9 miles away. But I mean they have height so they can carry many main cannons all stacked up and hanging from arms etc. a tank can only have one main cannon.

Again, height is a double-edged sword. The horizon is 9 miles away for the titan, but that also means that the titan is visible to everything within 9 miles. And oops, that Shadowsword hiding in a ruin somewhere in the 9-mile radius just killed the titan.

Because its a track with only one of the Titans weapons on it.

Still capable of killing a titan with one shot.

Plus nothing on tracks could have the same amount of protection as a titan, they have gak loads of voidshields on them.

Why is it impossible to put void shields on a tracked vehicle?

(Hint: it isn't, there are tracked vehicles with void shields.)

I still say the religious angle is the best one; especially given how the people making the Titans, the Mechanicum, are doing so from religious conviction.

 Flinty wrote:
I love stompy robots. I just happen to agree with Peregrine that it would be much more resource efficient to have something different. However as has also been well presented, pure resource efficiency is not really something that the Imperium does.

If giant walkers were something that would have a real battlefield utility, modern armies would use them.

Instead we have helicopters which have all the benefits of concealable firepower and mobility, firing guided weapons that mean they don't need all the armour that titans get loaded with.

Helicopters as they stand mind you would be an impractical choice for the IoM simply because they'd not always work. try deploying an apache on Mars for example. Although this doesn't mean fliers that fill a similer role won't work (the Stormhawk, and Stormraven gunships for example)

Yeah, helicopters on Mars... what a stupid idea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPL_Mars_Helicopter_Scout

40k has loads of helicopter equivalents. What it is missing is decent guided missile technology.

 Flinty wrote:
I love stompy robots. I just happen to agree with Peregrine that it would be much more resource efficient to have something different. However as has also been well presented, pure resource efficiency is not really something that the Imperium does.

If giant walkers were something that would have a real battlefield utility, modern armies would use them.

Instead we have helicopters which have all the benefits of concealable firepower and mobility, firing guided weapons that mean they don't need all the armour that titans get loaded with.

No we don't use them because we can barely build human sized robots never mind a 50 foot mechanical walker. We simply don't have the technology, that we haven't used them isn't proof that they are not useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
Battleships have large calibre weapons, and of course they are the proven pinnacle of all current warfare and are being built in ever larger numbers... or maybe not

Yeah and battleships can only fire most of their weaponry like 20 km.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
Yeah, helicopters on Mars... what a stupid idea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPL_Mars_Helicopter_Scout

40k has loads of helicopter equivalents. What it is missing is decent guided missile technology.

If you are fighting on a world with little to no atmosphere then helicopters are useless. They are also effected by bad weather, high winds etc. Our weather is pretty tame compared to other planets.

 Flinty wrote:
Yeah, helicopters on Mars... what a stupid idea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPL_Mars_Helicopter_Scout

40k has loads of helicopter equivalents. What it is missing is decent guided missile technology.

I specificly said Apache for a reason. yes a helicopter could work on Mars, it has an atmosphere, but as helocopter designed to fly in earths atmosphere MIGHT not fly in other atmospheres and it certainly wouldn't work on the Moon. vehicle design for a star fairing empire may be forced to adapt to the fact that there are a whole host of unpredictable planetary conditions we don't need to worry about on earth. efficancy might take a back seat to reliability

Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

Going with the premise that Titans exist in the far future, I can see them working, across various terrains and in many situations. They are not the best option, but they are a viable option. With shields and armour enough to stop the majority of weaponry on a battlefield, they would be pretty good, until a nice big gun comes along. No different to knights really, or for that matter dreadnoughts, all will stick out like a soar thumb, will be an icon to allies and scare the pants off most enemy. Until they are blown up. Just like a huge tank really! Because you worship that huge tank as much as your huge stompy robot. And there are plenty of big guns about that could kill a tank as easily as a titan.

I agree completely with Peregrine and Flinty, there are better designs, and it is difficult to understand why you would go with Titans given all the technology you have at your fingertips. Tanks are the best option that we know of. With current understanding and technology I would design a lot of slightly smaller tanks that each carry maybe one or two of the weapons.

The flyer tech alone would be a much better platform. Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

One question to ask would be, if you did not have titans, why would you have titan scale/killer guns? If it was just a case of bigger guns, why do we not have huge silly stuff now. I am probably in for a roasting here, but I think a lot of our weaponry is smaller than stuff used in WWII. (apart from nukes obviously) So it comes down to the old racing game, agility, manoeuvrability, armour, camo and fire power. Things go through different stages. Think we are on camo kick at the moment, if you can't see me you can't shoot me. the likes of the Apache were max firepower and agility. The A10 max firepower and manoeuvrability. etc etc. We know that a lot of the 40k aesthetic leans toward the great war (1914-18) but then there are elements like the hover capabilities of Landspeeders etc. bit weird having them from the same place as a fossil like the Leman Russ, and they are all human designs. I can understand Tau having different kit, and Eldar and Orks.

 Camkierhi wrote:
Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

Going with the premise that Titans exist in the far future, I can see them working, across various terrains and in many situations. They are not the best option, but they are a viable option. With shields and armour enough to stop the majority of weaponry on a battlefield, they would be pretty good, until a nice big gun comes along. No different to knights really, or for that matter dreadnoughts, all will stick out like a soar thumb, will be an icon to allies and scare the pants off most enemy. Until they are blown up. Just like a huge tank really! Because you worship that huge tank as much as your huge stompy robot. And there are plenty of big guns about that could kill a tank as easily as a titan.

I agree completely with Peregrine and Flinty, there are better designs, and it is difficult to understand why you would go with Titans given all the technology you have at your fingertips. Tanks are the best option that we know of. With current understanding and technology I would design a lot of slightly smaller tanks that each carry maybe one or two of the weapons.

The flyer tech alone would be a much better platform. Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

One question to ask would be, if you did not have titans, why would you have titan scale/killer guns? If it was just a case of bigger guns, why do we not have huge silly stuff now. I am probably in for a roasting here, but I think a lot of our weaponry is smaller than stuff used in WWII. (apart from nukes obviously) So it comes down to the old racing game, agility, manoeuvrability, armour, camo and fire power. Things go through different stages. Think we are on camo kick at the moment, if you can't see me you can't shoot me. the likes of the Apache were max firepower and agility. The A10 max firepower and manoeuvrability. etc etc. We know that a lot of the 40k aesthetic leans toward the great war (1914-18) but then there are elements like the hover capabilities of Landspeeders etc. bit weird having them from the same place as a fossil like the Leman Russ, and they are all human designs. I can understand Tau having different kit, and Eldar and Orks.

I agree with most of what you said but not that there are better designs than Titans, nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan, plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield, fliers have a better vantage point but they can't wield the same weaponry, and nowhere near the same weaponry and are susceptible to smaller arms fire, only the biggest can carry titan weaponry and they can only usually carry one main cannon like the thunderhawk but even that only holds the smallest of titan weaponry. As for terrain the only thing that can stop a titan would be hills and mountains and if that was the case they just wouldn't be used, they might find a longer way around but they can always go to a battlefield that was accessible, titans are rarely deployed on small scale wars, if titans are deployed its usually on a world scale battle and they support whatever forces they can get to.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan

{citation needed}

In reality a titan's shape means it will have weaker weapons and void shields than a tank of comparable mass. The titan has to spend vast amounts of space and mass on its legs, its shape has a poor ratio of internal space to mass compared to a nice efficient box on tracks, and any armor will be much thinner than a tank's armor. The only reason titans have the best weapons in 40k is that space Jesus commands that all of the best gear must go on the walking shrine to space Jesus instead of on tanks.

plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield

Again, this is a double-edged sword. A titan has a lot of visibility from its elevated position, but it also means that every titan killer on the battlefield has visibility to the titan.

fliers have a better vantage point but they can't wield the same weaponry

The Manta would like to disagree with this claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

The key difference here is that those walkers are human-sized and designed to interact with a world scaled for humans. Nobody is working on giant titan-size walkers because they're a fundamentally stupid idea.

Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

Because space Jesus says that AI is heresy.

Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan

{citation needed}

Go on, what 40k tanks have more void shields and weapons than the largest classes of Titan? I am curious what I've missed.

The largest IoM tank has a single macrocannon (so, a Titan-grade weapon) plus battle cannons and heavy bolters and other such weapons, plus 4 Void Shields.
The second largest IoM Titans (and the "regular" ones to boot), the Warlords, have over 4 Void Shields too (Reavers have 4, and seeing as Imperators, the largest class, have 12, I think Warlords having about 6 is a good estimate), can also carry Macrocannons, as well as at least 4 other Titan-grade weapons.

Surely, if it were sensible in the 40k universe (so, ignoring our conventions of physics and logic, and using internal logic of 40k), why wouldn't the Imperium try to put similar armaments on tanks if they were just as, if not more, effective?

In reality

40k isn't.

Who cares what IRL shape and thermodynamics have to say?

plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield

Again, this is a double-edged sword. A titan has a lot of visibility from its elevated position, but it also means that every titan killer on the battlefield has visibility to the titan.

Good thing then that the Titan can both engage the Shadowsword at roughly the same time (if they can both see eachother, then it's who-shoots-first), and still return fire if hit. The Shadowsword can't.

I would like to point out that, yes, in our world, Titans are super ineffective. The argument of Titans being effective is solely in the context of 40k. No, I'm not advocating people saying things like "it's fantasy, so just handwave it away and loosen up". I'm instead in support of something more like "we should judge the Titan by it's effects and context of how it functions in the 40k universe, and real world physics should not affect fictional physics".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan

{citation needed}

In reality a titan's shape means it will have weaker weapons and void shields than a tank of comparable mass. The titan has to spend vast amounts of space and mass on its legs, its shape has a poor ratio of internal space to mass compared to a nice efficient box on tracks, and any armor will be much thinner than a tank's armor. The only reason titans have the best weapons in 40k is that space Jesus commands that all of the best gear must go on the walking shrine to space Jesus instead of on tanks.

plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield

Again, this is a double-edged sword. A titan has a lot of visibility from its elevated position, but it also means that every titan killer on the battlefield has visibility to the titan.

fliers have a better vantage point but they can't wield the same weaponry

The Manta would like to disagree with this claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

The key difference here is that those walkers are human-sized and designed to interact with a world scaled for humans. Nobody is working on giant titan-size walkers because they're a fundamentally stupid idea.

Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

Because space Jesus says that AI is heresy.

Nothing that can be deployed on the ground. There are no other vehicles that have as many voidshields as a titan, I don't need a citation unless you can name another vehicle with more.

"In reality a titan's shape means it will have weaker weapons and void shields than a tank of comparable mass. The titan has to spend vast amounts of space and mass on its legs, its shape has a poor ratio of internal space to mass compared to a nice efficient box on tracks, and any armor will be much thinner than a tank's armor. The only reason titans have the best weapons in 40k is that space Jesus commands that all of the best gear must go on the walking shrine to space Jesus instead of on tanks."

We also need a citation for this. You do realise that titans don't have the same reactors as tanks? It has a plasma reactor, so its pretty much got endless amounts of energy.

Yes but a titan has voidshields to combat the amount of crap on the ground that attacks it and still shadowswords and the like are nothing in comparison to a titan, I mean a reaver is nothing compared to a warlord. The shadowswords and the like need a hell of a lot of time to take a titan down unless they are deployed in great numbers.

The manta can only match the smaller titans, doesn't come close to a warlord.

As for drones, they would be the best tech but it wouldn't be fun fielding an army of drones lol

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Go on, what 40k tanks have more void shields and weapons than the largest classes of Titan?

You're missing the point. The claim was that a tank can't fit the same level of void shields, not that the Imperium has chosen to save its void shields for its walking shrines to space Jesus instead of putting them on tanks. There is nothing about making a vehicle have legs and arms that makes it better able to carry void shields. In a hypothetical universe where the Imperium built practical tanks instead of titans those tanks would have just as much void shielding.

Surely, if it were sensible in the 40k universe (so, ignoring our conventions of physics and logic, and using internal logic of 40k), why wouldn't the Imperium try to put similar armaments on tanks if they were just as, if not more, effective?

Because space Jesus demands walking shrines to Himself. Titans, above all, are religious icons and tanks can't fill that role the same way. I have no idea why you think that "maximize effectiveness" is a driving concern for a faction whose fluff constantly references that faction making stupid decisions because it's an ignorant theocracy where common sense is heresy.

Good thing then that the Titan can both engage the Shadowsword at roughly the same time (if they can both see eachother, then it's who-shoots-first), and still return fire if hit. The Shadowsword can't.

A Shadowsword is capable of one hit kills against titans. The side that shoots first wins, and the Shadowsword has much better ability to hide behind obstructions and delay detection for a moment while it aims a kill shot. In fact, given that a titan's primary weapons are mounted much lower than its top, the Shadowsword might just score a fatal head shot on the titan before the titan's own weapons even get above the horizon.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Go on, what 40k tanks have more void shields and weapons than the largest classes of Titan?

You're missing the point. The claim was that a tank can't fit the same level of void shields, not that the Imperium has chosen to save its void shields for its walking shrines to space Jesus instead of putting them on tanks. There is nothing about making a vehicle have legs and arms that makes it better able to carry void shields. In a hypothetical universe where the Imperium built practical tanks instead of titans those tanks would have just as much void shielding.

Surely, if it were sensible in the 40k universe (so, ignoring our conventions of physics and logic, and using internal logic of 40k), why wouldn't the Imperium try to put similar armaments on tanks if they were just as, if not more, effective?

Because space Jesus demands walking shrines to Himself. Titans, above all, are religious icons and tanks can't fill that role the same way. I have no idea why you think that "maximize effectiveness" is a driving concern for a faction whose fluff constantly references that faction making stupid decisions because it's an ignorant theocracy where common sense is heresy.

Good thing then that the Titan can both engage the Shadowsword at roughly the same time (if they can both see eachother, then it's who-shoots-first), and still return fire if hit. The Shadowsword can't.

A Shadowsword is capable of one hit kills against titans. The side that shoots first wins, and the Shadowsword has much better ability to hide behind obstructions and delay detection for a moment while it aims a kill shot. In fact, given that a titan's primary weapons are mounted much lower than its top, the Shadowsword might just score a fatal head shot on the titan before the titan's own weapons even get above the horizon.

How do you know a tank can? The only reason the Primaris one has any is because its big enough, but its a hover craft so terrain considerations aren't the same, a massive tank on tracks, do you know the logistics of that.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Nothing that can be deployed on the ground. There are no other vehicles that have as many voidshields as a titan, I don't need a citation unless you can name another vehicle with more.

Again, the fact that the Imperium chooses not to build vehicles with void shields does not mean that it can't be done.

We also need a citation for this.

You need a citation for basic geometry? A box will have much a much better ratio of volume to surface area than a titan-shaped object. If you put X tons of armor on each then the box will have a greater thickness of armor because that X tons is spread out across a smaller area. If you need X volume to hold a reactor the box will have to spend a smaller percentage of its total volume to hold X. Etc.

You do realise that titans don't have the same reactors as tanks?

You do realize that we're talking about a hypothetical alternate 40k in which the Imperium builds titan-scale tanks instead of titans, right? There's nothing about having arms and legs that allows a vehicle to have a better reactor, anything the titan can do can be done by the titan-scale tank.

Yes but a titan has voidshields to combat the amount of crap on the ground that attacks it and still shadowswords and the like are nothing in comparison to a titan, I mean a reaver is nothing compared to a warlord. The shadowswords and the like need a hell of a lot of time to take a titan down unless they are deployed in great numbers.

A Shadowsword is explicitly stated to be capable of one-shot kills on titans.

The manta can only match the smaller titans, doesn't come close to a warlord.

Nope. The Tigershark AX-1-0, a smaller aircraft with only the Manta's primary railguns and not its large number of secondary weapons, is explicitly stated to be a counter to the Imperium's largest titans. It's probably only the smaller titans that are vulnerable to one-shot kills by a Tigershark (in canon a Warhound is destroyed in one shot), so an attack on a Warlord would probably mean multiple Tigersharks and taking losses in the attack, but those larger titans are its intended prey.

Also, remember that a Manta is not a conventional 40k ground unit. It's a small warp-capable warship designed for void warfare against capital ships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
How do you know a tank can? The only reason the Primaris one has any is because its big enough, but its a hover craft so terrain considerations aren't the same, a massive tank on tracks, do you know the logistics of that.

I know there's no reason why having a different shape prevents the use of void shields. Or do you have a reason why a titan-scale tank's lack of arms and legs would prevent it from having void shields installed?

When has a Shadowsword ever one-shot a titan?

Tyran wrote:
When has a Shadowsword ever one-shot a titan?

IA1, the Shadowsword is explicitly stated to be capable of severing a titan's leg with a single volcano cannon shot. And guess what happens when a bipedal walker loses a leg.