So, Why don't we have tiger tanks in 40k?

Ooh, I confused the two, sorry.

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.

no sponsons

Cause you're too lazy to buy an appropriately scaled kit and slap some Imperial adornments on it you faggot.

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.

Ret-conned as of IA2: 2nd ed.

Because then you would buy non GW models

>Implying.

They would only need to stylize it, This probably the wrong direction as it looks more like a landraider with a turret.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

Where do you get this idea from?

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.

What was retconed and into what?

Just how fast is the Leman Russ in fluff?

>So, Why don't we have tiger tanks in 40k?
Butthurt tea bags, I'd assume.

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?

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.

Brits actually fucking love the Tiger.

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.

>In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, cold war doctrine applies.

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.

>Cold War
Try more like post WW1, Interwar doctrine.

They'd turn to chaos in no time

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

Why do you want to bloat logistics more than the mess than it already is?

>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.

>40k
>common sense
>muh logistics
Are you retarded?

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.

>The M3 Lee/Grant required 7 fucking crew members

Only the Lee. Grant had 6.

>Pick Laserifle over Autogun or Bolter because logistics.
>Logistic don't matter.

user...

>Executioner:
kph on road

Sorry, that's 30, not 39.

warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Shadowsword
This thing has remote-controlled sponsons.

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.

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

>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.

So... All of them are fucking slow for a tank. Except the destroyer, for whatever reason.

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.

>(barely) made room for a 5th member, the radio controller.

No, they added a loader, so the commander could command instead of hauling shells.

>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.

That's still too many in that tiny coffin.

And remote-controlled doesnt even mean automated, it just means the gunner can sit in a better protected position.

>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.

>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.

>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...

The 76mm version of the T-34 did have a loader. The commander doubled as radio operator.

>EveryWarmachineInTheImperiumOfManEverMade.jpg

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.

Even the soviets called them "grave for 7 brothers".

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.

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.

Looks similar, that's for sure. It's still stupid, and caused a fuck ton of problems for them.

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...

getting hit with a high explosive shell will do that.

Armor piercing shells are substantively different.

Play Bolt Action and stop trying to put everything into 40k, you dumb faggot.

All the better to highlight how the Imperium doesn't really know what it's doing with a lot of its technology.

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.

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.

Or rather, how idiotic the game designers are/were.

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?

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.

youtube.com/watch?v=wZwH2EmB3XA

>"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.

>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?

>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.

>>lol, nogunz brits can't into tonk
But they can't design a decent tank in real life either.

See also Anval Thawn's continuous resurrections.

Probably something like "haha stoopid hoomans dont use the tank to its full tactical potential like our superior minds would haha"

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.

>But they can't design a decent tank in real life either.
Nice meme.

Multi-fuel engines are fairly common on modernish tanks.

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.

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).

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.

>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.

Always remember the Golden Rule of GW writing:
"All numbers are wrong by at least one order of magnitude."

Heheh, its exhaust probably smells like fries.

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.

>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.

It was necrons, and it was also really, really badly written.

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.

That requires believing that most xenos armor is weaker than 300mm of conventional steel, which is false.

>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.

Prove it, xenos scum.