So, Why don't we have tiger tanks in 40k?
>>47421623
Because tigers are so heavily armored and have such extreme range that it would trump anything in the 40k universe easily.
>>47421644
Pretty sure that even if we go by GW's retarded numbers, the Tiger doesn't stack up. Nothing does, really, until you get to tamks with composite armor.
>>47421725
Baneblades have worse armor than a T-55 if I remember correctly. GW numbers are several types of retarded.
>>47421644
Wouldn't it have something like AV8 or nine at the most?
Bare in mind, Russ tanks have been described in fluff as getting hit on the side armour, being physically shunted to a side by metres and the worse to happen to the tank is a dent in the armour and the crew are nursing large headaches.
>>47421644
Depends on which numbers you go off, since GW can't keep its consistency for shit. We'd either have the Leman Russ shrugging off its main cannon or crumpling like paper.
>>47421749
Last numbers I remember seeing for a baneblade was 300mm of SpaceSteel across the front. T-55s got about 100-120 on the hull, and about 200-250 on the turret
>>47421784
This here lists them at 200mm at the hull and 220mm at the turret. And I remember they gave the RHA equivalent somewhere.
>>47421827
Oh I forgot the link.
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Baneblade
>>47421827
>And I remember they gave the RHA equivalent somewhere.
No, they didn't. They gave the Land Raider hull with all its layers having the equivalent of 300mm of conventional steel. In the fluff conventional steel and plasteel are used quite interchangeably. Plasteel and ceramite is what the terminator armour is made of.
>>47421872
Ooh, I confused the two, sorry.
>>47421827
>>47421846
Gotcha, so a T-55 could match up reasonably, while being easier to produce. A tiger ot tiger ii'd still get BTFO though. The key here is ammo. The T-55'd pen that at ranges well beyond what the Tiger could manage, because post-war ammunition.
There were vehicle design rules in 3rd edition. Not sure if they ever got updated after that.
>>47421623
no sponsons
>>47421623
Cause you're too lazy to buy an appropriately scaled kit and slap some Imperial adornments on it you faggot.
![Armor_Scheme_Tiger1[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/mya25du.png "Armor_Scheme_Tiger1[1].png")
I actually have a theory regarding armor thickness in 40k.
If one looks at the crunch of the game, AV14 makes one effectively immune to all but the strongest weapons, yes, but what ARE the strongest weapons?
Melta weapons, man-portable and capable of ignoring almost ANY armor. Sure, AV14 gives them trouble, but not enough.
Lance weapons, which don't even care about anything above AV12.
And of course there's all the shit that auto-damages above a certain roll value, so again your super-thick armor isn't relevant.
AV14 doesn't represent the end-all-be-all of armor thickness; hell, across factions it probably doesn't even represent an actual casemate thickness. It represents what's sufficient to defend against attacks that it's ACTUALLY PRACTICAL to defend against. Some stuff has AV15, yes, but most conventional vehicles max out at 14.
So there's the reason that Leman Russes don't have armor that's as thick as, say, a Tiger, or an Abrams. There's no point. It's exactly as thick as it needs to be to do it's job.
Just so happens that the thickness in question is a bizzarre, poorly written fluff number, but my point stands.
>>47421872
Ret-conned as of IA2: 2nd ed.
>>47421623
Because then you would buy non GW models
>>47422616
>Implying.
They would only need to stylize it, This probably the wrong direction as it looks more like a landraider with a turret.
>>47422576
People just get too hung up after confusing physical thickness measurements for RHA equivalent figures.
Seems too me AV 14 is about the same or a bit better than our best modern arnour. A russes battlecannon is comparable too a modern tanks gun and is about as useful firing at russ as an M1 vs M1, explosive shells are pretty much useless, you want the APFDS ultra dense penetrator. Though it should be noted that the vanquiser round is likely somewhat better since it uses scifi magic material admantium for its penetrator.
>>47421623
1) Comparatively few were made during WW2, numbering 1500 for the 1e, and 500 for the 2.
2) It's impact was only really felt during the mid-war years of '42 and '43. Despite the fearsome reputation the Tiger 1e enjoyed, it was an overengineered mess with many teething and logistics problems.
3)The King Tiger was fearsome, but it's impact on the field was barely felt. When you need to stop an army producing thousands of tanks every month, a "wuhnder wherpon" that guzzles gas, takes a long time to build, and is easily flanked, is not what you should be spending resources on.
And 4) Because 40k is derpy and idiotic. The tank designs are stuck in interwar years (between WW1 and early WW2), when mutliple turrets and sponsons were still a thing. Because it goes by "rule of cool/derp", and not "what realistically works better", 40k doesn't have anything close to an actually successful tank chassis post WW1. Sponsons are great IN THEORY, but require extra crew, supply issues, and have limited fields of fire. Multiple turrets failed for much the same reason, with the T-35 and Lee/Grant being a clear example of how clusterfucked the inside of derpy designs can be.
And 5), because tanks in 40k are not meant to engage other tanks effectively. Nor are tank weapons represented remotely well. They *should* have multiple statlines representing anti-infantry HE rounds (ordnance), and armor piercing (HVAP, HEAT) rounds for armor combat. But 40ks vehicle rules are way too badly written. Armor shouldn't be 10 to 14, and strength of guns shouldn't be 1 to 10.
>>47422691
You seem to forget that the value of a human in 40k is significantly less than in our world, so extra crew is a much cheaper alternative to an extra tank.
>>47422691
>have multiple statlines representing anti-infantry HE rounds (ordnance), and armor piercing (HVAP, HEAT) rounds for armor combat.
the vanquisher battlecannon used to be able to fire the standard HE shells too.
FW still has alternative ammunition rules for a few of the russ varients.
>>47422655
AV14 is nigh on nuclear bomb on the doorstep proof.
9 to 11 would be roughly 'modern' standards.
The rules are largely abstract and devoid of any real complexity and should never be used to work out and kind of real approximation.
>>47422793
From the fluff of the Macharius Vanquisher, it sounds like the alternative shells ARE available but most vanquishers don't have large enough racks to practically store more than one type of shell.
ABG command and elite tanks eschew this risk because they're better shots and don't need to worry about missing as much.
>>47423243
Where do you get this idea from?
>>47422793
Only because Forge World is the only part of GW that doesn't have it's head up it's ass. But they spend most of their tank design on IG.
Even so, the Vanquisher was done to the best of their ability, with a really flawed system.
>>47422596
What was retconed and into what?
Just how fast is the Leman Russ in fluff?
>>47421623
>So, Why don't we have tiger tanks in 40k?
Butthurt tea bags, I'd assume.
>>47422742
You seem to have never been in a tank. Value of humans means nothing. It all comes down to logistics, size, and the ability to cram people in an armored beast. The T-34 obr 1941/42 all had a crew of 4. The T-34-85, with it's larger turret and cupola, (barely) made room for a 5th member, the radio controller. Panthers, Tigers, Shermans, all were about 5 crew members. Modern tanks have much better radios, which means 4 is the typical crew size, while Eastern designs (e.g. Russian) tend to swap out the loader for an auto-loader device, bringing them down to 3.
Part of the problem with tanks like the M3 Lee/Grant or T-35, or T-28, wasn't "human lives being worth something"... It was huge crew sizes and the ridiculous chaos that resulted. Along with cramming more bodies into an already cramped interior. The M3 Lee/Grant required 7 fucking crew members, in a hull that wqs cramped with 5. The T-35 required 11 people, largely due to needing to man it's stupid amount of turrets (5!). These tanks failed first and foremost not because human lives aren't cheap, but because cramming that many bodies into a small armored fighting compartment only makes things more confusing and difficult for the crew. And that's saying nothing about how worthless sponsons are to have, when each requires a gunner added to the count.
Heavy Tanks are obsolete. Main Battle Tank are enough and light tanks barely have a place among recon units.
Would a river stop a Leman Russ?
>>47423267
Which only begs the question of how few shells do the damned tanks have? Even the IS-2 with it's 20-something maximum 2-part rounds, could carry both HE and AP rounds.
>>47424120
Brits actually fucking love the Tiger.
>>47424146
Sponsons on many Imperial tanks don't need gunners, they have servitors/servo skulls for that.
In the case of anti-tank sponsons (Multimelta, Lascannons, etc), they're slaved to the main gun and fire at whatever that's aiming at. In the case of anti-infantry weapons, the commander just presses a button marked "DANGER CLOSE" and the heavy bolters fire in all directions.
>>47424150
>In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, cold war doctrine applies.
>>47423944
Not him, but Land Raiders are supposed to be nuke proof because they have AV 14 all around.
A nuke would take out most other tanks though because the blast would envelope them and penetrate the rear/side armor.
>>47424257
>Cold War
Try more like post WW1, Interwar doctrine.
>>47421623
They'd turn to chaos in no time
>>47424116
According to IA vol. 2:
Russ:
>35kph on road
>21kph off-road
Demolisher:
>28kph on road
>17kph off-road
Exterminator:
>40kph on road
>24kph off-road
Vanquisher:
>doesn't say
Executioner:
>39kph on road
>18kph off-road
Conqueror:
>34kph on road
>24kph off-road
Annihilator:
>40kph on road
>24kph off-road
Destroyer Tank Hunter:
>50kph on road
>35kph off-road
Thunderer:
>32kph on road
>22kph off-road
>>47424257
Why do you want to bloat logistics more than the mess than it already is?
>>47424236
>Sponsons on many Imperial tanks don't need gunners, they have servitors/servo skulls for that.
Yes they do, even the Imperial Guard codex says so. Unless you're AdMech or SM, you're fucked in that regard.
>>47424317
>40k
>common sense
>muh logistics
Are you retarded?
>>47424146
The A7V had 18 dudes. Somehow. Talk about clown cars.
Either way, everyone is ignoring the Leman Russ wasn't built for crew comfort, or realistic tank design, or anything IRL modern designers (military or otherwise) can even begin to imagine.
It was built to LAST. And I don't mean "T-34s fighting in Syria" last, I mean "this vehicle dates from the Paleolithic and still works like as if it was made yesterday" last.
Seriously, go tell a dude or a board of designers you want a vehicle to last TEN THOUSAND YEARS, most of which it will spend in high intensity warfare, without catastrophic breakdowns. They'll laugh you out of the room.
>>47424146
>The M3 Lee/Grant required 7 fucking crew members
Only the Lee. Grant had 6.
>>47424341
>Pick Laserifle over Autogun or Bolter because logistics.
>Logistic don't matter.
Anon...
>>47424310
>Executioner:
>>39kph on road
Sorry, that's 30, not 39.
>>47424328
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Shadowsword
This thing has remote-controlled sponsons.
>>47424268
Modern tanks are extremely nuke-resistant. While a nuke is able to annihilate effectively anything up close, beyond that zone the will shred any soft target, but struggle with hardened ones. The effects are simply too spread out and diffuse to deal with tanks, bunkers, and such. You get a brief hurricane, and anything with line of sight to the bomb that you could set on fire with a match starts burning. Tanks, bunkers, and so on don't give a fuck about such, you need a highly concentrated punch for those.
>>47424236
The only automated sponsons, are on space marine vehicles. And it's still a stupid waste due to limited arcs of fire, extra ammunution storage requirements, and extra power requirements. For all the guns a Predator Autocann/Heavy-Bolter variant had, the interior would need to be pure ammunition storage apart from the turret basket and driving compartment.
The Russ, and indeed Baneblade, or any other not-muhreen vehicle, is far more likely to require a person to man every sponson. A standard Lemun Russ, assuming the Radio Operator is no longer necessary, would require a driver, a hull weapon gunner, a tank commander, a main cannon gunner, a loader (possibly 2 given 40k's love of fuck-huge guns), and a gunner for every sponson. This brings the internal crew count to a very ridiculous number of 7 with sponsons.
The problems with sponsons, and multi-turrets, and the chaos it causes on the inside, are not factored into 40k at all, because 40k runs off rule of derp-cool. The tanks are designed by what is effectively a 12 year old's idea of what he wants the tank to look like. Things like internals, crew count, logistics, or the gun's recoil blowing out the back-half of the under-sized turret, are conveniently ignored.
The T55M6 can kill Any warhammer tank or ww2 and most modern tanks
>>47422691
>but require extra crew
I mean a crew of five is excessive, but we've done a hell of a lot worse in reality.
Mind, even without the sponsons I think they still run four or five. I know I've seen reference to loaders and commanders in addition to the usual drivers/gunners.
>>47424310
So... All of them are fucking slow for a tank. Except the destroyer, for whatever reason.
>>47424396
If you read, say IA vol. 2, you'd know that the original design had remote controlled sponsons, but often they're replaced with crewed versions.
It's possible they're referring to the 30k Falchion with its quad lascannon sponsons.
>>47424146
>(barely) made room for a 5th member, the radio controller.
No, they added a loader, so the commander could command instead of hauling shells.
>>47424352
>The Russ wasn't built for crew comfort.
The Russ wasn't even built for crew. It's a 6th grader's shitty wet-dream of a tank, held over from 2nd edition. The designers didn't know what they were doing, and it's painfully obvious.
>>47424356
That's still too many in that tiny coffin.
>>47424499
And remote-controlled doesnt even mean automated, it just means the gunner can sit in a better protected position.
>>47424459
>So... All of them are fucking slow for a tank.
Just like the fluff says. Who would have thunk?
>Except the destroyer, for whatever reason.
No turret and hull gun replaced with the main gun. No munitions, only the generator to power the laser cannon.
>>47424458
>Commander is main gunner
That's even more fucking retarded... The French ran into serious problems with the whole 1-man turret on the Char B-1, Somua, and Hotchkiss. It puts far too much strain on the commander to command the tank, communicate with other tanks in the company, fire the gun, and reload. Hell even with an autoloader, it'd be too much for him to handle.
>>47424458
>I mean a crew of five is excessive
Five seems like it was pretty standard in WW2. Sherman, Panzer 3 to Tiger, T34-85, KV-1, Comet, Cromwell...
>>47424501
The 76mm version of the T-34 did have a loader. The commander doubled as radio operator.
>>47424296
>EveryWarmachineInTheImperiumOfManEverMade.jpg
>>47424568
I seem to recall the Char B1 was one of the inspirations for the Russ, so it's possible this old piece was making a nod to that effect.
>>47424517
Even the soviets called them "grave for 7 brothers".
>>47424031
Land Raiders don't have a set armor thickness or equivalent armor thickness. Their armor is as strong as it needs to be for what they're fighting against.
>>47424546
Tank Destroyers historically weren't faster. The removal of the turret weight helped, but that was often counter-balanced by the much larger guns they were loaded up with.
>>47424606
Looks similar, that's for sure. It's still stupid, and caused a fuck ton of problems for them.
>>47424617
While there are exceptions to the tank you ave being a whole fucking lot better than the tank you wish you had, the M3 Lee/Grant isn't amongst them.
75mm cannon needed, 75mm delivered. Yeah, it ain't a Sherman, but we haven't developed that one yet, so unless you think Fritz will be ok with a year or two of thumb wrestling while we address that...
>>47421778
getting hit with a high explosive shell will do that.
Armor piercing shells are substantively different.
>>47421623
Play Bolt Action and stop trying to put everything into 40k, you dumb faggot.
>>47424655
All the better to highlight how the Imperium doesn't really know what it's doing with a lot of its technology.
>>47424626
Destroyer is 8 tonnes lighter than a Russ and 6 tonnes lighter than an Exterminator.
In real life the bigger gun is also heavier (the account for the more powerful munition and longer barrel) plus comes with its ammo. A laser weapon doesn't really build pressure in the barrel it needs to withstand, so it's possible the gun, while larger than a battle cannon, can be lighter. It also doesn't need its own ammo, so it can either run from the tank's own engine or a souped up lascannon generator. So you're losing, at least, the turret, hull gun and all the ammo for them.
>>47424666
Except even the Soviets hated the damned things, even when they were hurting for tanks. They even preferred the Matilda, and it sucked in the boggy marshlands and snow-covered terrain of eastern europe.
>>47424713
Or rather, how idiotic the game designers are/were.
>>47424623
Then what are these?
And are you saying that if a new source doesn't repeat old fluff to the letter, but doesn't exactly contradict it either, the old fluff is no longer valid?
>>47424750
The SU-85 was 29 tons, the T34-85 was 32 tons. And not only did they have the same gun, their speed stayed about the same (55km/h).
Hell they even loaded the SU up with 30mm of extra armor on the front, and upgraded it's gun to the 100mm D-10S (that later went on the T-55), and that brought it's weight up to 31.6 tons.
Removing a turret doesn't make a tank faster. The Russ Destroyer would have to have some kind of serious weight removal beyond 8 tons, or a far better engine producing a shit ton of extra horsepower.
I guess that this would be what a Leman Russ would like in the Real Life. It even has the same top speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZwH2EmB3XA
>>47424788
>"Hey, this historical tank was designed pretty poorly."
>"It sure was, quite fitting of the regressive Imperial Guard."
>lol, nogunz brits can't into tonk
It's like people who complain about the Russ being a slow ass piece of shit and ignoring the fact that it's a slow ass piece of shit in the fluff as well.
>>47424853
>or a far better engine producing a shit ton of extra horsepower.
It probably has a better engine to help power the giant laser. When it's not lasing it can go faster.
Wasn't there a piece of fluff where the Tau analyse the thing and conclude that it is a surprisingly good tank, but hampered by human ignorance. Does it mean that it has a button that allows it to go faster and other functions that most human crew don't know about?
>>47424840
>Many times more resilient than almost any other material used by the armies of the Imperium or those of its enemies.
That's my point. The old edition had an exact comparison to conventional steel whereas the new one is more ambiguous. And yes, if it is the exact same paragraph of lore with only a single change, it is a ret-con of the old lore. See Collected Visions vs Visions of Heresy on the size of a company within a legion for a similar instance.
>>47424875
>>lol, nogunz brits can't into tonk
But they can't design a decent tank in real life either.
>>47424900
See also Anval Thawn's continuous resurrections.
>>47424897
Probably something like "haha stoopid hoomans dont use the tank to its full tactical potential like our superior minds would haha"
>>47424897
They probably mean that a lot of technology in it is sound (engines that can run on almost any flammable substance for instance) but the overall design is unrefined.
>>47424915
>But they can't design a decent tank in real life either.
Nice meme.
>>47424937
Multi-fuel engines are fairly common on modernish tanks.
>>47424853
What I can find is SU-85:
>29.6 tonnes
>55 km/h
SU-100:
>31.6 tonnes
>48 km/h
Hmm... 2 tonnes more weight and the speed drops by 7kph.
>>47424968
Yeah, but the Leman Russ can basically run on nothing more than vegetable oil if it has to (it's super inefficient, but it can).
>>47424897
I want the Tau and a bunch of Gue'lla to redesign one, only to have it instantly possessed by chaos and go on a rampage.
>>47424937
>A shity panther copy with 20 years of upgrades.
>Barely managed to shoot chinks in outdated soviet armor and arabs in export garbage.
Yes, the height of british ingenuity.
>>47424900
Always remember the Golden Rule of GW writing:
"All numbers are wrong by at least one order of magnitude."
>>47424980
Heheh, its exhaust probably smells like fries.
>>47424900
Old comparison was to 300mm of conventional steel. New comparison to various vehicles, which all have different armour materials and constructions. Doesn't mean it still can't be equivalent to 300mm of conventional steel.
>>47424568
>That's even more fucking retarded.
Yeah, and in fluff the commander is usually a separate guy from the primary gunner.. so I'm not sure where he could actually fit in the tank.
>>47424897
It was necrons, and it was also really, really badly written.
>>47424969
Yes... And? The T-34-85 had 53km/h, and it was 3 tons heavier than the SU-85. The SU-100's 48km/h also was arguably due to the drastically longer gun, and it's effect on the vehicle's center of gravity. Even so, it didn't lose much speed at all.
Removing the turret still =/= a massive increase of speed in te range of 20-something km/h. Especially when the gun is swapped out with a monstrous space-magic laser-cannon with god knows what powering the damned thing.
>>47425012
That requires believing that most xenos armor is weaker than 300mm of conventional steel, which is false.
>>47425043
>in te range of 20-something km/h
Well, if 2 tonnes less can give you 7kph more speed, then how much do we need to remove to get 10kph? Remember, Exterminator has a road speed of 40kph and all it does it replace the battle cannon with two autocannons.
>>47425044
Prove it, xenos scum.
>>47424296
> I was the might of the Wehrmacht
> I was the hammer of my people
> I fought from France to Russia and back again
> Now everyone remembers my older brother, who breaks down, his engine falls out and his crews keep having to blow up his hot cousins because they keep getting stuck in the mud
> Now I'm only remembered by fucking neck beards on the internet and senile historians
>>47424585
Remember: in Britain knowing anything at all about weapons military technology beyond world war two gets you branded as a potentially dangerous social outcast.
Hence how basically all military fiction from the UK has everything based entirely off world war two technology, tactics and organization.
>>47425044
That's a very good point.
We know that Imperial tanks fire weapons that can kill xenos tanks, including Necron and Tau ones who have most assuredly not forgotten how science works. And when Imperial tanks fight each other the armour does work some percent of the time, so it's not like the weapons are far more effective than the armour.
From this, we have to conclude that either:
1) All races are as bad at making armour as the Imperium,
2) Imperial armour is tuned to deflect Imperial weapons, and Imperial weapons are tuned to defeat xenos armour.
3) The numbers comparing Imperial armour to steel are wrong.
I think 3) is the most likely, because GW are notoriously shit at all things to do with numbers.
>>47425197
Agreed. Which is why the change to a more ambiguous value was done. Alan Bligh knows when he's fucked up.
>>47425184
Not really. Knowing things about military tech gets you employed by the MoD, who pay well enough to never really bother with another career again. Remember, GW gets the idiots who couldn't find real work.
Well, at least the Leman Russ is not a M3 Lee.
>>47425197
Yet this change did not make xenos armour stronger or Imperial weapons weaker. A battle cannon can blow up Eldar and Tau vehicles just as well.
>>47425281
That's not the point. The point is there's no longer a valid comparison to IRL tanks.
>>47421623
A lot of 40k doesn't make much sense and goes with a higher ratio of rule of cool than actual science or sense. Also their aesthetic doesn't full on rip off whatever its they're inspired by.
>>47425081
Again, you're grabbing the weong comparison. Look at the SU-85 and T-34-85.
Better yet, here are actual heavy tanks versions.
The IS-2 was 46 tons, and had a speed of 37km/h.
The ISU-122 was an assault gun variant of the same tank, with the same chassis, replacing the turret with a fighting compartment housing the same gun. It had slightly less armor, at a worse angle, and weighed 45.5 tons with a top speed of 37km/h.
The ISU-152 was the same vehicle as the ISU-122, but instead swapped out the 122mm gun for a shorter 152mm ML-20s. It weighed in at 47.3 tons, and had a top speed of 30 km/h.
So, what can you take away from this? Increasing the weight of a vehicle does indeed slow it down a bit. Removing the turrret =/= a significant loss of weight on it's own. And even when a loss of weight occurs, it doesn't have as big of an effect on the tank's top speed as overloading it. Which is why the SU-85 and ISU-122 were still very close to the same speeds as their turreted counterparts, and why the SU-100 and ISU-152 saw a decline in speed.
You can find similar results with the Panther and Jagdpanther, as well as the Panzer III/IV and the StuG. Removing the turret and replacing the battlecannon with a lol-lazor, while doing nothing to significantly reduce the overall tonnage or improving the engine substantially, does not suddenly make a tank jump up 20km/h in top speed.
>>47425184
That's still far more knowledge than americans ever get.
>>47425281
The comparison goes like this:
>A battle-cannon can often hurt an Eldar/Tau/Necron heavy-tank,
>A battle-cannon can often be deflected by Imperial armour,
>Therefore: either the Imperium is good at making armour and the numbers are wrong, or no race has better armour than WWII.
Guys. Just ignore all the numbers. This isn't hard sci-fi, it's space-fantasy.
>>47425197
It was also written over 13 years ago at the start of 4th edition.
>>47425267
That would probably be an improvement.
>>47424696
Those are armor piercing shells.
The Imperium still makes and uses this piece of shit. What makes you think they'd want to make anything good?
>>47425402
>Guys. Just ignore all the numbers. This isn't sci-fi, it's shit writers whose tank knowledge is equivalent to a 3rd grader's.
>>47425309
>>47425402
You people do realize it's not 300mm of RHA, but 300mm of "conventional steel," which in the fluff has often been used interchangeably with "plasteel," right?
Wraith units are made of wraithbone, which is said to be stronger than adamantium, yet it's only 3+ save while ceramite and plasteel is 2+/5++ worth of save.
>>47425374
>you're grabbing the weong comparison
How is "lighter vehicle is faster" the wrong comparison? You're the one who brought up the SU-85 and SU-100!
>ISU-152
>47.3 tons
>30kph
>ISU-122
>45.5 tons
>37kph
Oh, look, the lighter vehicle is faster!
>>47425516
Most of the writers didn't care to put down hard numbers, and the ones who did got it completely wrong all of the time. What numbers would you suggest would make sense for a Lemen Russ?
>>47425444
>AV14/13/12 OR AV13/13/12 and Fast
>super-heavy
>6hp
>demolisher cannon and battle cannon
>flare shield
>costs about the same as a Russ and a Demolisher
>can be taken as Heavy Support
30k is the shit.
>>47425563
Isn't the quote that the armor is "equivalent to 300mm of steel"?
That could mean a lot of things. Like the armor is thinner but has the same protection like 300mm of hard steel. Or it's actually composite armor but it's put as RHAe for comparisons between tanks.
>>47425563
The front armour of a Lemen Russ is 14, higher than any non-titan vehicle the Eldar or Tau create. And equal to the Necron Monolith, a doom-pyramid held together by nanobots and space-magic-science. And it's an up-armoured tractor.
In the end, that's the stupid-ass comparison that the numbers must justify.
>>47425658
But in 40k, it's not the shit, it's shit. Sorry not everyone enjoys playing nothing but Space Marines and vaguely traitor Space Marines.
>>47421623
Because it was a shit tank design, after working out the kinks the Panther was a far better all around tank.
>>47425661
300mm of conventional steel. That's what it said. In the fluff Russ armour has, for example, been described as conventional steel with ceramite inserts, reinforced plasteel (reinforced with ceramite?) and plasteel and ceramite. Plasteel is used in wide range of construction across the Imperium.
>>47425666
>And it's an up-armoured tractor.
ebbin may-may brah
>In the end, that's the stupid-ass comparison that the numbers must justify.
How does making it vague make it any better? The Russ is no weaker and the alien vehicles are no stronger.
>>47425693
I'm like 95% sure that the quote is "equivalent to 300mm of steel".
>Plasteel is used in wide range of construction across the Imperium
And this is yet another problem in 40k. The Imperium is so ridiculously huge that the plasteel could be anything. Like promethium, that's just literally any liquid that can be thrown into a Leman Russ to make it work or used as flamer fuel.
>>47425444
Might still be made somewhere in the boonies but I'm pretty sure it was a mothballed reserve tank on Vraks.
>>47421778
>Bare in mind, Russ tanks have been described in fluff as getting hit on the side armour, being physically shunted to a side by metres and the worse to happen to the tank is a dent in the armour and the crew are nursing large headaches.
That's literally what happens in real life.
>>47425666
>And it's an up-armoured tractor.
Isn't every tank just an up-armoured tractor on some level, Satan?
>>47424998
>Barely managed to shoot chinks
individual chinamen, motherfucker
look up 'Centurion Tanks in Korea' by Lt J Brown, it very easily proves you wrong.
>>47425732
You're wrong.
>>47425718
Because the retarded meme wasn't about comparing Imperium tanks to xenos. It was comparing to the Abrams.
Again, the point of the change was to keep down comparisons to RL tanks.
>>47425732
Argh!
>>47425801
>"I pull shit out of my ass verified by nobody" by some dude
>The new uk best selling novel after "the us of a didn't save our asses and did all the work"
ayy
>>47425818
>Because the retarded meme wasn't about comparing Imperium tanks to xenos. It was comparing to the Abrams.
Yeah, but in this thread people brought up xenos, so of course're going to talk about them.
>>47425848
>any source that disagrees with me must be wrong!
>implying they didn't.
>>47425732
You mean like how "fuel" can refer to all manner of things in the real world?
Also, according to 4e IG codex, prometheum commonly refers to incendiary jelly used in flamers.
>>47425818
Nigger it says right there that the armor is 98mm thick, which is equivalent to 300mm of conventional steel. So it's RHAe, as I've said.
>>47425888
>I have an unverified source that claims stuff I like
>it must naturally be true__________ayy__________
>>47425854
Only because they're trying to reconcile the original 300mm number with the new description, rather than accepting that whatever the true value is, it's not 300mm.
Because most vehicles in 40k are awfully design both visually and thematically
>>47425919
Pay attention faggot. That's the 1st edition. 2nd edition doesn't include those numbers and goes out of its way to make the description a comparative one, rather than absolute.
>>47424310
>Abrams can reach speeds up to 120kph
>Destroyers barely reach 50
kek
>>47425957
>120kph
Source? Best I can find is 72kph.
>>47425946
Does it still have armor 14 in the new edition?
Theeeeeeeeeeen its the same.
>>47425946
I'm not one of the original anons, I just corrected whoever is claiming that the 300mm isn't RHAe.
So 300mm RHAe is still a fuck lot, especially when there are so little shaped charges in 40k. And those that work by penetrating armor, like lascannons, melta bombs and powerfists are complete overkill most of the time.
>>47425923
It doesn't matter if it's 2000mm of conventional/plasteel. It's still better than many of the xenos. A WW1 tank is still withstanding esoteric beam emitters and blowing up cybercthulhu's tanks.
>>47425992
>applying game rules to lore
Fuck off.
>>47426040
Do show me where conventional steel = RHA, because that's one leap of logic I've never seen explained.
>>47426066
RHA is not RHAe.
The armor is 98mm of composite materials that goes like this
>titanium or plasteel > thermo-plast fiber mesh > ceramite > ceramite
This composite armor offers the same protection as 300mm of conventional steel.
>FW says 300mm
>GW says 365mm
I thought FW was suppose be more realistic with their number.
>>47426368
FW does NOT say that. That's the whole fucking point of the change in the second edition.
See >>47425223
>>47426390
But they DID. Right after GW said 365mm.
>>47426435
14 years ago.
>>47426047
It's not like GW ever really bothered to make tanks for xeno races. All they get are psuedo-flying grav "tanks", drop ships with railguns, a semi-truck, or a building. Because lawlz, only guard get tanks!
I always felt like Orks should have gotten some kind of heavy assault-gun looking tank.
>>47425987
Your is correct. 72km/h for the M1. Which is pretty fucking awesome, thanks to that gas-guzzling turbine engine.
>>47426499
pic related?
>>47426456
Less than 12.
>>47426499
That's true, and it's so each race is distinct.
People who want to play 40k and use tanks get to play Guard (which comes in an infinite variety, so long as it's grim). People who want to play aliens do so because they're different to humans, so they like using vehicles that are different: skimmers, railguns, flying doom-bricks.
>>47426499
>I always felt like Orks should have gotten some kind of heavy assault-gun looking tank.
literally the Lungbursta
been in the game since the early 90's?
>>47421644
>extreme range
Sure buddy.
>>47426555
>That's true, and it's so each race is distinct.
Kind of falls apart when you remember that Orks loot everything though.
>>47425595
Not 30km/h faster, retard. Pull up the weight disparity between the russ and the russ destroyer.
Again, for your thick, dense, head: yes weight affects vehicle speed. No, taking off a turret doesn't turn a Tiger into a BT-7.
>>47426499
>give aliums tonks
>"waah! why do super advanced aliens use shitty tonks?"
>don't give aliums tonks
>"waah! why only emporium git shitty tonks?"
Also, nothing stops you from making ork vehicles into tanks. They used to have plenty of tanks, but clearly GW has decided to give them a look closer to technicals than combat vehicles. I just hope they bring back looted wagons. All they'd really need to do is take a Rhino and throw in there a sprue with orky bits to fit all over it. That way they can justify having it in the rules and people get to convert their own ork tanks.
>>47426546
IA2 1ed was released December 2003, so more than 12. So we're both wrong.
>>47424187
no more than any other tank. they're capable of fording shallow ones if there's no bridge.
>>47426565
I remember the lung bursta, spleen rippa, bowel burna, and gobsmasha. That's the fucking point. They got rid if them at the beginning of 3rd, and now all the Orks have is a shitty "one size fits none" semi truck.
>>47426607
>Also, nothing stops you from making ork vehicles into tanks.
Except a shitty codex with no tanks.
>>47426531
No. FW was swell for doing that. But it's still a super-heavy vehicle that only ever found it's place in apoc games, provided you were allowed to bring IA8 into it.
>>47426593
You're being so dishonest with your arguments that it's unbelievable.
Russ:
>35kph on road
>60 tonnes
Destroyer Tank Hunter:
>50kph on road
>52 tonnes
50-35 = 15, not 30.
>taking off a turret doesn't turn a Tiger into a BT-7
I never said pulling off the turret made the Russ faster, I said making it lighter made it faster. They took off 8 tonnes of shit from that thing, and it became 15kph faster. And this does not make sense to you. But if they take 2 tonnes off the SU100 and it becomes 7kph faster, it totally makes sense.
>>47426555
Don't be silly. Nobody wants to play aliens anymore, unless it's D-spam Eldar.
>>47426609
ISBN code says 02.01.2004.
>>47426670
Why do you turn this thread into a house of lies?
>>47421623
>So, Why don't we have tiger tanks in 40k?
they aren't British enough.
>>47422576
>So there's the reason that Leman Russes don't have armor that's as thick as, say, a Tiger, or an Abrams.
It's also because most Imperial "weapons" technology is repurposed farm equipment.
>>47421623
Because Tiger Tanks aren't as much as you hype them up to be. There is a reason that Germany uses the Leopard 2.
>>47426886
also for the cost of getting one tiger in the field you can have a dozen leman russes
Let alone the cost of maintaining the dumbass things, dear god.
>>47426929
The Tiger is fascism summed up in a single engineering project
It looks incredibly scary on paper, commands respect in its first engagement, and when it gets back to the motor pool it turns out all the internals are broken and need repairs no-one can provide
>>47426524
Leopard 2 is as fast without that logistic nightmare of a turbine.
>>47427002
You forgot:
>/pol/ is furiously masturbating on it.
>>47426916
never go full meme, dude
>>47426724
They took 2 tons off the T-34 when making the SU-85, and it went 2km/h faster. The removed half a ton from the IS-2, and it's speed didn't even fucking change.
They ADDED to the weight of the SU-85, and the ISU chassis, and it went down.
As far as taking 8 tonnes of shit making it 15km/h faster, I'm calling bullshit numbers pulled out of thin air. Replacing shells with whatever space magic lazer capicatators isn't going to make a huge difference on weight, and the destroyer's gun is going to be significantly heavier and push the vehicle's center of gravity closer to the front of the tank. Tearing out the (dinky) turret and replacing it with a fighting compartment might peel off 4 tons or so, after the guns are swapped. That might get you maybe a few extra km/h, 15 it most certainly won't get without improving the engine and gearbox.
>>47427109
Same with the T-72.
>>47426916
Don't forget that these "Farm Equipment" is much deadlier then anything we have today.
>>47421623
Because they'd suck. Standard Russ is armed with a 120mm main gun compared to an 88mm. And who gives a shit about the amount of armor in millimeters. Baneblade has only 200-220mm of armor and yet can still tank multiple Tau HYPERVELOCITY railgun rounds (Last Ultramarines novel where Tau invade Pavonis is source). If only 200 or so millimeters of armor can do this it shows that armor today and in the far future is incomparable so any arguments about it don't really matter.
>>47427109
the gas turbine has that one small advantage over a conventional piston engine in that it is quieter
but then again the sound of 1500 hp gas guzzling engine is like sex for your ears
>>47427445
>it shows that 40k's numbers make no sense, and are largely just pulled out of the writer's ass
FTFY
>>47427226
And in terms of SU-85 and SU-100 the weight difference is 2 tonnes and speed difference is 7kph.
>the destroyer's gun is going to be significantly heavier
Citation needed.
>>47427532
Still proves my point though anon. That it's hard to compare them because the numbers just don't match up.
>>47427532
Obviously Warhammer isn't for you. Why don't you play Flames of War or some other shit or do you just like taking settings that everyone one else is enjoying and conforming everything to your liking.
>>47421623
Because 40K is all about WWI tech. You'll need to wait for Warhammer 60K before they get to 1920's tech, then Warhammer 80K for the best of the 1930's, then finally Warhammer 100K if you want to see a bit of the WWII stuff.
>>47427657
Well on the idea of sponsons the thing is a lot of the armies this tank will be facing will be primarily infantry focused so while it might not make sense to us it's a crucial anti-infantry defense in the setting.
>>47425928
>are awfully design
For the M3 battlefield and for the purpose of modern tank doctrine, sure.
For the M31+ battlefield and for the purpose of their tank doctrine (hint - they're used much closer to WWI-era tanks than modern tanks are), not at all.
>>47427829
This. Tanks in 40k are meant for a much stronger anti-infantry role, and to more strongly support infantry and provide cover for them as they move. Even the first Rhinos were designed by colonists who had to fight Orks.
>>47427829
>>47427867
Remember, Baneblades were a "medium Tank" in the height of the age of Humanity.
>>47427109
Yeah but the Leo 1 was based off the mbt 70 wasn't it? So you would compare an m1a1 to a Leo 1 and well the Leo 1 was faster it had awful armor and was designed with ambush and hit and run doctrine in mind.
>>47428249
Didn't they also hover?
>>47427867
Well that makes sense with the argument of it being world war one tech wise because tanks were originally designed to support infantry.
>>47422691
>Point 1, 2 and 3
Although at some extend you are right it is still pretty generalised facts, like: all the shermans being shit or you need 20 shermans to kill a Tiger (and you should know that is bullshit).
It is true that few of both thanks were made, but still they still did an impact in the war, not to win the war but together with t34 they changed the concepts of tanks warfare and desings. And both affected the moral of enemies and allies.
>they were overengineered mess
That is pretty true but the lack of "reliability" was because they needed a bigger supply line than a panzer iv (something that was a problem because the state of germany at the end of war) and they were moving from battlefield to battlefield fighting non stop since they were requested for a lot of german commanders.
Tiger I was almost as reliable as PzIV, provided it received the needed logistic support and was correctly maintained by its crews.
> When you need to stop an army producing thousands of tanks every month...
It is true, but it is the best Germany could have done, even if they just produced panthers, stugs and panzer iv they would have never fight in even number against the allies.
>>47428615
Germans might not have had the numbers, but they could have at least had the quality, if they let their engineers do their job, provide the military with what they needed, made production more effective and skipped on all the needless work.
>>47428782
And didn't let Hitler or Porche anywhere near the designs.
Or try to put double the design weight onto a tank chassis that was tight to begin with.
>>47422638
Every time I see this picture I can't unsee the Weyland Yutani logo on the tracks.
>>47428782
It would still be a mess, since german engineers could be one of the "best" ones of the world but you need to completely change their industrial doctrine and make a proper standardization in all their equipement and factories. The best form to say this is that allies made tanks in production lines like cars, germans like trains.
>>47428249
no. that's just a common fanon thing.
>>47428992
What do you think the "made production more effective" part meant? Adopt a mass production model. Soviets did it. Hell, even the Brits hunkered down and started making bombers out of furniture and £2 sub-machine guns from bed springs and motorcycle exhausts. And they were so good even the Germans wanted to copy them, but the brass was like "This piece of shit? Poppycock!"
>>47424617
Fun fact, you could fit an entire infantry section in one of those if you really wanted to, assuming you ditched most of the crew. There are references to the Soviets managing to cram twelve guys in there, since they valued it as an APC more than as a tank.
>>47425444
Tfw the Malcador is your favourite 40k tank.
>>47428249
Some people say they were a light tank back in the day - I've never seen a source on this, or that the leman russ was a tractor.
>>47429065
They got desperate enough in the end. They made some 10,000 of these things from early 1945 to the end of the war.
Also the British soldier had a love/hate relationship with the Sten, especially since it had an unfortunate tendency to uncontrollably dump the entire magazine if you dropped it or gave it a hard knock while cocked. However the ingenious Tommy did find a use for this - when clearing a room, they would take a couple of fully loaded Stens, cock them, then toss them through a door/window and let them saturate the entire room (and any Germans inside) with bullets!
>>47429169
It is a nice looking tank, but it is really, really shit and there's no nice way of putting it. You'd have to be insane to use it in a 40k game.
>>47424189
According to at least one 40k wiki, 28 shells.
>>47429169
Its mine as well, That and the second generation baneblade.
Although, I don't understand why they call it second generation if its shitter than the first generation.
>>47429418
Explain why its shit.
>>47429392
Then again, try carrying a Thompson around for a few months or years, and you'll love that piece of shit Sten all the more.
I love a documentary talking about the Sten and how they just kept making it cheaper and cheaper. I think the original production model was like £2.50 and by the end they cut down on parts and manufacturing time and got the price below £2. Imagine trusting your life on something that costs less than £2 to make.
>>47424189
IIRC They posted a cutaway of a Russ once where the gun Breech likely wouldn't be able to open, let alone fit three guys in the turret.
>>47429418
No disagreements in terms of the tabletop, I just like it in the fluff as an aging (says quite a lot for 40k) second line reserve vehicle, that said the Defender variant is far from the most useless thing you could take.
>>47429441
Because it came after the 1st?
Also, doesn't the "2nd generation baneblade" refer to things like the Macharius, basically a super-heavy made by forge worlds that don't have the capability to make the baneblade, using regular battle cannons instead of the rocket assisted baneblade cannon, etc.?
>>47429449
It's got slightly weaker front and side armor than a Russ, with only its back armor being any better. It can take a few more hits since it's a heavy tank, but that doesn't help much. It's turret can't rotate 360 degrees, being only limited to a certain arc.
But probably worst of all is that damnable engine - there's a chance that whenever you move it, the engine will break down, immobilizing the tank. And when you have a tank that can't even fire behind it, and barely to the sides, it's pretty much useless, especially if you're fighting a very mobile enemy.
>>47424278
No, heavy tanks were still around through the early Cold War period with the US holding onto theirs the longest.
>>47429370
the leman russ isn't a tractor. people just got it mixed up with the Siegfried light tank, which the death korp use instead of Sentinels. The Brunhild APC they used in epic was a converted tractor as well.
>>47429513
Christ. Now i hate the tank.
You've made me hate something that i loved, Then again how can i hate a tank like that? It just looks so awesome..
As a proxy for my leman russ, paybacks a bitch and so is the price from forge world.
>>47429987
Malcador Defender tho
>>47429997
Tell me more about its stats and usefulness.
>>47427599
wew
What he said was precisely true, you didn't need to go full apologist. I am somebody that greatly enjoys the setting, still it's no big deal to come to terms with the fact that often the writers shit the bed.
>>47430022
It has cool guns in all directions that can shoot people dead.
>>47429487
That's the version I have. My local meta is very casual so it frees up people to really just be fluffy and not be too concerned about optimisation.
>>47430107
Really wish I had a place nearby that played like that.
>>47429997
Why isn't there a lascannon defender?
>>47421623
Far too expensive and unreliable. The Tiger was impossible to get anywhere in numbers.
The Imperial Guard needs a tank that's easy to build and runs forever. It doesn't have to good at anything else.
do you even malcador infernus.
>>47430245
Every time i see this tank.
Do you even malcador infernus plasma.
We took everything you liked about the infernus and stuck a whooping giant anti tank plasma gun in its position.
Its so large infact, that it needs to carrier an extra plasma generator in a trailer just to power the gun.
>>47430245
>>47430280
That kinda reminds me of this gem.
It's a shit concept, but it does the job.
>>47430131
I find it's an attitude more common to clubs, stores I've been to tend to attract the worst sorts.
For me it's the only way to play, few can afford, or are willing to purchase a new army every half edition, and adding new elements, allies and such incrementally to my existing armies than trying to frantically assemble and paint the next hottest army before a tournament.
>>47430245
I reckon the weapon looks way too big for the fuel carrier, hell the weapon looks way too big full stop.
>>47430327
Me and a friend don't really buy tanks from the shop we go to.
We just use their paint and brushes to paint the existing kits we have.
>>47429987
Sometimes you can love something that's totally shitty. It seems a common occurrence for people to like an underdog.
At least it's not a Tyranid Pyrovore or anything like that. It still has some use if you use it carefully, you just have to set things up so you won't need to move it much and can take advantage of its guns as best you can. Honestly, if it was a little tougher, the engine wouldn't be a problem since you could still set it up as a sort of mobile bunker.
>>47430344
>40K
>Weapon looks too big.
Does not compute.
>>47430344
That's the point - hellhound flamers are too small, this flamer is something you could stick on a titan.
>>47430280
there's this thing.
>>47430715
Yes, was.
>>47421778
If your tank gets moved by the shell that hits it, even if the tank survives your crew is dead. From the shockwave of the impact alone.
>>47426584
Nothing stopping you from converting something.
>>47426584
nah it seems fine. The Ork kits are distinctively orkish. If you want looted tanks you buy the other races kits.
>>47428615
>and was correctly maintained by its crews
You mean by giving them a battalion level maintanence crew for a squad of tanks?
>>47426916
NOPE.
There's one tank from Krieg that is.
The rest is "Scout tanks" or "Medium Tanks" for superheavies, but definitely warmachines
>>47435187
I'm pretty sure the sure the Baneblade was described as being the main line battle tank, not a 'medium' one. If there was a weight class above it I'm sure we would have heard of it by now given GW and Forge World's shared love of making stupidly enormous kits.
>>47431259
Not in 40k. Draw whatever conclusions you like about what that means for the strength armour, and why the mechanicus spend all that time praying over it.
>>47421623
They're called AT-70 Reavers in Gaunt's Ghosts.
>>47424568
>>47425037
The fluff is all over the place on Leman Russ crews. Sometimes you have 5 crew members, and two of them are loader and gunner. Other times you have a crew of like 8 for a Baneblade, or 8 for a fully-sponsoned Leman Russ, or just 4 dudes.
>>47424774
But the Brits had no such problems in North Africa. It just wasn't suited for defensive, static warfare that they preferrred.
>>47425801
Also, Centurions in Israel.
>>47425444
Why are the tracks noodle-thin?
>>47435656
The British complained about it to the point where they got the US to build the Grant for them instead, then they complained about that too because it was still far too tall and had the gun in a really fucking stupid place.
>>47425928
>rubber tracks
>>47421623
Because every weapon in 40 k is crazy powerful.
Shit a guards flashlight could be trouble.
