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.

 Ishagu wrote:
Except it does look like a WW1 tank

It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol

But Mark 1-5 from WWI had a rised turret section, they just didn't have guns in them. It was the later post WWII and inter war tanks that brought tanks with turrets in them, at least as far as tanks that head LR type of tracks, and options for side weapons. there were of course the first light renault tank with turrets at the end of WWI, but those looked nothing like the land raider


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Are you expecting to see a real world vehicle that looks exactly like a Landraider? Iol

You won't, because a Landraider has no ground clearance and literally can't function.

The first LR model looks like a Mark 3-5 from WWI. including the spotter turret section and a gun pointing backwards

 Ishagu wrote:
Except it does look like a WW1 tank

It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol

Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters.
This is ridiculous.

Fairly sure GW themselves said LR is inspired by the Mk IV back when they released the new plastic kit mid-way through 3rd edition.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Except it does look like a WW1 tank

It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol

Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters.
This is ridiculous.

It is, though probably not in the way you thought.

The Land Raider borrows from the WW1 design, sure. But with the plated armor, angles, lasers, etc. It looks pretty futuristic, too. It's the successful marriage of disparate influences that makes it so cool, imo.

If you can't see the similarities that led to the land raider design, I don't know how to help you.

As for the Leman Russ, no, it's not a Grant. A Grant shares more with modern tanks than the Char B1. The Char has the hull weapon and turret, but more importantly, the same track style system rather than enclosed tracks like later tanks.

Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Except it does look like a WW1 tank

It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol

Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters.
This is ridiculous.

It is, though probably not in the way you thought.

Except that is exactly that way, because the comparison can be made only on a very fundamental level (like for those humanoid creatures that share a similar body plan).
It's the same thing as "they are 2 flat armored vehicles, SEE? THE SAME! GOTCHA!".
Being dismissing is not going to make these preposterous claims valid. You are defending a post made by someone that could be speculated as a joke account mocking GW white knights.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.

A Lemman Russ is a M3Grant tank, which thanks to 38k years of improvment , finaly moved his main gun to the turret and his support gun to the hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
If you can't see the similarities that led to the land raider design, I don't know how to help you.

As for the Leman Russ, no, it's not a Grant. A Grant shares more with modern tanks than the Char B1. The Char has the hull weapon and turret, but more importantly, the same track style system rather than enclosed tracks like later tanks.

hull gun? check. too tall? check. Bad suspension drive? check again. It is a Grant. only the howitzer was moved to the turret and the low caliber support gun got turn in to a lascannon. Heck they both even have engine drives based on tracktors.

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.

A Lemman Russ is a M3Grant tank, which thanks to 38k years of improvment , finaly moved his main gun to the turret and his support gun to the hull.

Imo the Russ doesn't bear much resemblance to the Grant. I think it looks morre like a MkIV with a turret.

anyway with 40K tanks, at least for the IoM one can often tell the inspiration by looking at them. the land raider was obviously inspired by WW1 British Tanks. the Lemen Russ IMHO was inspired by Interwar tank designs. The Rhino IIRC was based off an actual APC. the repulsor is clearly a "hover bradley" it's not an exact match of course, none of the 40k tanks are, but it definatly harkens to it.

I think, getting back on topic, some design elements that work for Primaris are when they look like an evolution to better a current kit. Like the Intercessor, which most consider to be great looking.

As opposed to the Repulsor which feels more like a design mutation than a gradual evolution. The mutation makes the changes to these hover tanks stand out like sore thumbs with the other imperial vehicles and probably in part why they get such mixed reactions.

I dunno, I can see how the design evolved. looking at the tank beside a land raider, you can actually see the relation between them. both have the slightly tapered front, the rectuangular hull. the repulsor appers to have added the hover plates of a land speeder, and moved the primary armernment into a turret. it then added a secondary turret covering each exit/enterance point to the tank. the changes to it's weapons layout corrects two major design flaws with the land raider

I mean you see evolution I see mutation. As evolution might have been sleeker look, still ground based with turret addition.

I honestly think they were trying to go for giant leap in design. However only some people will appreciate that, others feel divorced from it.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Except that is exactly that way, because the comparison can be made only on a very fundamental level (like for those humanoid creatures that share a similar body plan).
It's the same thing as "they are 2 flat armored vehicles, SEE? THE SAME! GOTCHA!".
Being dismissing is not going to make these preposterous claims valid. You are defending a post made by someone that could be speculated as a joke account mocking GW white knights.

The imperial fascination for sponsons on its armored vehicles is indisputably a WW1 aesthetic - no tanks built after the early 30s have them, and for very good reasons. The flat, riveted hull panels are very evocative of British Mark I - VIII designs, particularly the way said panels cover up the road wheels.

Heck, a lot of Leman Russes seen in artwork and studio paintjobs even use the white-red-white vertical stripe markings painted on the outside front "horns" of many Mark IVs. Also take note of the the front idler wheel tensioning assembly on a Mark IV (it's the trough-shaped thing that goes diagonally across the red and white stripes on this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IV_tank#/media/File:MarkIVFemaleTankAshfordKent.jpg) and then look at the corresponding location on a Russ and you'll see that detail has been copied over by whichever GW designer first drew up the kit back in the 90s.

It is not inconceivable to claim a Leman Russ is modeled using several WW1 and interwar period design cues. Its exact pedigree is more complicated than that*, but to pooh-pooh the assertion outright as you, sir, have done, is risible.

* I myself have often wondered if any of the original GW design team saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which invented a wholly ficticious Mark IV-style tank with a turret on top for an iconic action scene. I'm not sure if the timeline works, though. The film came out in 1989, but I don't know when the first appearance of the tank in the 40k universe was. I believe the original would have been a 6mm scale metal model for Space Marine (the game), followed by a 40k 2nd edition plastic kit in the mid-90s. I'm not well enough versed with the early editions of Adeptus Titanicus / Space Marine, alas.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Except it does look like a WW1 tank

It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol

Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters.
This is ridiculous.

Except is is an established fact that gamesworkshop were inspired by the ww1 tanks when making the original landraider. They have said so many times. So it’s a fact not opinion. It wasn’t a ww1 tank. It was inspired by it but was a sci-fi futuristic tank. The mk3 land raider we have now is an evolution of that design. They moved further away from that ww1 look and developedthe angular layer armoured look of all marine tanks that hadn’t existed prior to 3rd edition. So what you see now is an amalgamation of ww1 inspired design and deliberate creation of a unified look of marine vehicles. Again. All facts. To deny that their is anything of a ww1 tank inspiration in the landraider isn’t fact or opinion it’s a lie. So please stop.

You have kinda of a point for the original Land Raider, but it becomes moot for the iteration Insectum was discussing above.
Yes, the influence is there concerning obsolete concepts like sponsons. But in very general terms.
The presence of the sponsons or similar elements by themselves is not enough. The way the elements of the design are shaped go in different direction in the subsequent iterations.

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.

A Lemman Russ is a M3Grant tank, which thanks to 38k years of improvment , finaly moved his main gun to the turret and his support gun to the hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
If you can't see the similarities that led to the land raider design, I don't know how to help you.

As for the Leman Russ, no, it's not a Grant. A Grant shares more with modern tanks than the Char B1. The Char has the hull weapon and turret, but more importantly, the same track style system rather than enclosed tracks like later tanks.

hull gun? check. too tall? check. Bad suspension drive? check again. It is a Grant. only the howitzer was moved to the turret and the low caliber support gun got turn in to a lascannon. Heck they both even have engine drives based on tracktors.

You realize that the Grant is not the only tank designed that way. Take your time to look at Char B1 and other similar tanks that share some WW1 design elements. It is not a Grant, not that it's really that important.

I'm torn between complaining about the grav plates and complaining about the busyness caused by having so many weapons. Both things feel a bit off to me. But that's personal taste. I can definitely see the similarities between land Raiders and repulsors.

There are several conversions and photoshop efforts around that make the repulsor more eye pleasing. Including one with lascannons on sponsors and no turret. I think it's largely the double up missile pods on the turret and the use of stubbers that bother me weapon wise.

And I think having grav plates at the middle front is what I find jarring there. If it were only in place of tracks it might look better to me.

To go back to my original point: both the classic Astartes and Imperial Guard vehicles are a mish-mash of retro futuristic design with inspiration from WW1 tanks.

The new Primaris tanks are a greater departure and more futuristic in design and function, whilst still offering a homage to the classic Astartes tanks in terms of some angles and shapes.

I'm happy that they are a greater departure from the mass produced gear of the Astra Militarum.

Except for those mass produced stubbers

Ironhail stubbers are actually unique to the Primaris, as far as I know. They are an improvement on the regular version.

But it also makes perfect sense for vehicles to be armed with easy to maintain, cheap, mass produced secondary weapons.

Also they look much nicer than stubby Storm Bolters that have no place being aimed on a pintle.

I'm just going on look, they look very similar to other imperial stubbers and ww2 onwards .50cals Storm Bolters have been pintle mounts on marine vehicles for decades. Suddenly you have a problem with them when somebody makes fun of the primaris pintle mounts

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
You have kinda of a point for the original Land Raider, but it becomes moot for the iteration Insectum was discussing above.
Yes, the influence is there concerning obsolete concepts like sponsons. But in very general terms.
The presence of the sponsons or similar elements by themselves is not enough. The way the elements of the design are shaped go in different direction in the subsequent iterations.

It’s a progression, the mk1 landraider looks like a ww1 tank in space. The mk2 and 3 landraiders look like the mk1 tank but even more in space less ww1. The repulsor looks like the mk3 but even even more in space but with a Bradley turret on it.

In the 2nd to 3rd edition era gw decided to differentiate the tanks of marines and guard. Guard went further to the ww1 aesthetic but still not exact match but with design cues off them. Rivets, sponsors etc. Fw took that a bit more ww2 in design. Marines then got the angled over lapped plates that we know and love today.

So no, a mk3 landraider isn’t a ww1 tank like a labradoodle isn’t a wolf. But they are related and you can see it.

robbienw wrote:
I'm just going on look, they look very similar to other imperial stubbers and ww2 onwards .50cals Storm Bolters have been pintle mounts on marine vehicles for decades. Suddenly you have a problem with them when somebody makes fun of the primaris pintle mounts

I have no problem with it at all. I don't like the auto launcher on the new tanks. No one has to love every aspect of any of the vehicles.

robbienw wrote:
I'm just going on look, they look very similar to other imperial stubbers and ww2 onwards .50cals Storm Bolters have been pintle mounts on marine vehicles for decades. Suddenly you have a problem with them when somebody makes fun of the primaris pintle mounts

Personally wasn’t a fan of strombolters on Pintle mounts. Likes the multimelta or a the heavy bolters but avoided storm bolters. Heavy stubbers on imperial guard. The marines look best with mini guns pintles imo. Would like to hear from the design team why they have moved to heavy stubbers. The return to auto cannons is a welcome one to me too.

It’s got to be cause of the mechanicus link, they love a cognis stubber.

I think it's just cause the design team likes the look of 50 cal barrels. and I do too TBH. leaving aside lore concerns the guns look nice. Ishagu and Andy aren't wrong when they say the storm bolter looked a little... stubby on a tank's pintal mount. it looked like someone lashed a pair of M4 carbines to the pintal. when you see apintal mounts on actual tanks it's useally a heavy machine gun. so a pintal mount SHOULD be a heavy bolter or heavy stubber IMHO

Pintle heavy bolters, I wholeheartedly approve

robbienw wrote:
Pintle heavy bolters, I wholeheartedly approve

honestly one'd work on a pintle mount it'd not be that big.