Imperial tanks wrong?? - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Member Killer Clown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Centre of the Universe
    Age
    44
    Posts
    244
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    45 (x1)

    Imperial tanks wrong??

    I have noticed on many Imperial tanks that they include a secondary turret in the hull.
    Now....the 40k universe is very advanced but also anachronistic in many respects, but why would they include design elements in their tanks, that we discarded as unwieldy and relatively ineffectual during WWII.

    Really??? 40K is a fictional universe, but it is still based on the same laws of physics and tactics that we have discovered.
    You would think they would have advanced tank design beyond our redundant, past efforts!!
    After all they have been at war for thousands of years, surely some one thought, "Hey, why don't we get rid of that turret in the hull that has a 90 degree arc of fire and adds needless weight and crew to the tank, give it a multi-role main gun and some missiles!"
    In 50 years we have developed the Abrams, Challenger, T-72, Merkava, Leopard 2 and the best the Empire has to offer is tanks that would not look too out of place on a WWI battlefield.
    Yes, they might look cool, but they should be effective as well, right?

    As a tread head this causes me much pain.
    Rant over :rolleyes:

    Last edited by Killer Clown; August 5th, 2006 at 15:57.
    Coulrophobia - Fear the Clown!

    ANZAC clan Inquisitor =]A[=



    Quote Originally Posted by A mod
    Killer Clown - Please refrain from the dry, mocking, sarcasm you have so wittingly displayed here
    .....flattery is my Achilles' heal.....

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member AtlantianWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sanford,NC
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    40 (x3)

    You have some good points on his subject. As the modern day MBT goes they are nothing like what we had in the past. Now in the 41st millennium maybe they can not field the tanks of the past, so they field what they think works best. They add more weapons to inflick more damage?It is hard to say. The other side to it this is a game. So what you and I think would work in real life has no bearing on how it should work in game.
    Why use science and education when ignorance and superstition will work just as well.



  4. #3
    Senior Member artificer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hunched Over My Workbench, furiously painting away.
    Age
    43
    Posts
    620
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputation
    88 (x2)

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Clown
    I have noticed on many Imperial tanks that they include a secondary turret in the hull.
    ...
    After all they have been at war for thousands of years, surely some one thought, "Hey, why don't we get rid of that turret in the hull that has a 90 degree arc of fire and adds needless weight and crew to the tank...
    :rolleyes:
    They only need 90* arc because in the 41st millennium all battles are waged with the enemy right in front of you, and a maximum of 4' away! :yes:

    Seriously though, WWI was so greatly different than WWII in that the battlefields were static rather than mechanized, highly mobile fronts (usually).

    Perhaps the standard battle tank's roll in the general 40K universe is similar to the WWI tank's roll of line breacher, rather than that of a true mech/inf or armoured cavalry role?

    Of course, there is always the "it just looks friggin' cool" factor as well.
    Baby, when I'm the voice of reason, we've got problems!
    ~artificer

    Someone should stop
    Jervis "let's make it easy enough for a 3 year old to play" Johnson
    before he turns 40k into checkers

    ~anon

  5. #4
    Member Killer Clown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Centre of the Universe
    Age
    44
    Posts
    244
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    45 (x1)

    So why have a game based on real life things like cover, firing arcs, range, armour etc.
    If you pick and choose what to include and exclude the choices become arbitrary and meaningless. Eg. The game includes weapons with differing forms and ranges. Why mount one where it is inefficient and nearly useless. It is difficult to rationalise.

    Adding more weapons in this way doesn't work for reasons that can't be explained away by 'the game'.
    The Grant, an American WWII tank, had a similar type of setup, the reason was to mount two guns firing different munitions for different situations (infantry and armour).
    The one in the hull was nearly useless - the gunner had little visability, the turret could not traverse or elevate far, it required another crew member to operate increasing the #of crew, the gunner nearly choked to death when the gun was fired (not a problem with lasers etc), the tank must be pivoted to fire with any efficiency/accuracy, the commander must target 2 guns or at least take them into account when moving/placing the tank, the turret was easily damaged rendering it useless, when in a 'hull down' position (turret only exposed - desirable in a tank) the hull gun can't fire, and so on....

    I suppose this is what I am getting at....

    Artificer - I meant they look WWI not they are. Tactics of any army worth its salt should develop with technology. I find it hard to believe they are still using tanks as forward firing mobile pill boxes. Very short sighted for the ultimate war machine?
    Last edited by Killer Clown; August 5th, 2006 at 16:54.
    Coulrophobia - Fear the Clown!

    ANZAC clan Inquisitor =]A[=



    Quote Originally Posted by A mod
    Killer Clown - Please refrain from the dry, mocking, sarcasm you have so wittingly displayed here
    .....flattery is my Achilles' heal.....

  6. #5
    Senior Member Bob Dole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    37
    Posts
    655
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    38 (x2)

    I find it completely recockulous that all Space Marines are boys. In the far future, you still need the counter weight hanging between your legs to wield a big gun. I mean... the, er... gene seed only works with males. Yeah! That's it.

    ...mmhmm.

    New technology is developed at a slower pace in the future than it is now, because we lost the documentation and nobody is clever enough to come up with it again. I didn't buy it in Waterworld and I don't buy it in the grim darkness of the future. I think Waterworld had better writing though.

    Really, pointing out flaws in the 40k game world is kindof like pointing out that pointing out flaws in the 40k game world is really easy. It's pretty damn easy. It does give you something to do to pass the time though.
    You play your game, I'll play mine.

  7. #6
    Senior Member artificer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hunched Over My Workbench, furiously painting away.
    Age
    43
    Posts
    620
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputation
    88 (x2)

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Clown
    Artificer - I meant they look WWI not they are. Tactics of any army worth its salt should develop with technology. I find it hard to believe they are still using tanks as forward firing mobile pill boxes. Very short sighted for the ultimate war machine?

    I know, I would tend to agree with you. I love screwing people out of using a side sponson or similar with just a simple position change. If you read the Gaunts Ghost book "Honour Guard" it is obvious that tanks are used in a manner similar to that of WWII. Making the hull turret a bit silly.

    That said, I HATE tanks in this game. I personally don't take them because I think they're too easy to kill and for the points, I'd rather have TONS of infantry. I guess I'm just a grunt at heart.
    Baby, when I'm the voice of reason, we've got problems!
    ~artificer

    Someone should stop
    Jervis "let's make it easy enough for a 3 year old to play" Johnson
    before he turns 40k into checkers

    ~anon

  8. #7
    Rushing Jaws Ancalagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lincolnshire, England
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,541
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    238 (x6)

    Theres a few explanations

    1) The sculptors at GW thought it looked cool

    2) They are inspired by WWI - The IG rely on masses of infantry backed up by powerful artillery just like WWI - Remove the laser weapons and they could walk straight into the trenches. Remove the turret from a Leman Russ and you've pretty much got a 1916 Mark I tank

    3) When the games developers decided that the tanks should have the option of extra weapons they thought that they would look ridiculous all crammed onto the turret leaving large areas of plain tank hull - hence, hull mounts and sponsons

  9. #8
    Senior Member Astantia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    792
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    48 (x2)

    Ancalagon is correct. The Tanks are

    1.) Based on WWI Tanks.

    2.) Based on WWI Tank IDEAS.

    That is, put all your armour on the front, with a big gun, and prepare to plow through the enemy. The Imperial Guard fights with tactics from that era. The Space Marines are little better, utilizing Special Forces type tactics. Humans are the only race that still uses these kinds of tactics and technology.


    It is done to show how backwards Imperial Thinking truly is. They fight the way that makes the most sense to a simple mind, which is 'wrap a bunker around yourself and wade into combat.' They are afraid of technology, and technology stems from thought, so the average soldier, who sits inside a Leman Russ and realizes 'hey, if we remove that Lascannon we could almost have enough crew to have another tank' shuns such a thought and puts his faith into the peope who came before him, and in the fact that this is how it is always done.

    Innovative thinkers are heretics in the Imperium.

    However, if you really wanted to, you could use the VDRs to make a more sophisticated tank.
    Gareth is the person I try to impress when I convert and paint.

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Age
    48
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    19 (x1)

    In the original fluff (40K Rogue Trader - last Millenium no less!),
    the WW1-style of the tanks was explained by them being based
    on conversions of agricultural tractors. I think the reasoning went like
    this:
    Only simple, rugged designs could be maintained without high
    technology on outpost worlds. These standardised designs were
    spread throughout the empire, so when the "great disaster" happened
    and the high tech stuff was lost, the only vehicles that could be easily
    built were these standardised designs - adapted to become war machines
    rather than agricultural tractors.
    Eldar vehicles seem more like current ideas of high-tech vehicles.
    Single weapons in a fast, grav-based platform.
    I'm not up to date with 40K, so this old explanation could have been
    superceded by now. Back in my day, they had Squats!
    Cheers,
    Spon

  11. #10
    Member Killer Clown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Centre of the Universe
    Age
    44
    Posts
    244
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    45 (x1)

    Yeah....Squats and Zoot and those high-tec frog guys whose name escapes me at the moment. Oh just remembered Slaan

    I still don't buy it.....exo-suits of powered armour with synthetic muscles etc and converted tractors for tanks?? They've been at it long enough to evolve some better designs.

    As Bob Dole said though, pointing out flaws in GW is like shooting ants with a flamer.
    This is just my pet hate.

    Astantia - Never thought of using the VDR, good idea, where can I find them? Chapter approved, Imperial armour?

    Watch someone crap themselves when I field a couple of Challenger or Abrams variants.
    Coulrophobia - Fear the Clown!

    ANZAC clan Inquisitor =]A[=



    Quote Originally Posted by A mod
    Killer Clown - Please refrain from the dry, mocking, sarcasm you have so wittingly displayed here
    .....flattery is my Achilles' heal.....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts