Find a flaw

Find a flaw.

It's not painted chaos black.

Not enough turrets and sponsons.

Too many turrets and sponsons.

Heavily outclassed by wraithknight in everything.

On that subject. I'm building a formation of baneblades.

I'm putting two turrets on each side.

What is "Rear Armor 12" for 1,000,

What is "If they're behind you, you've already fucked up." for 1,000.

"And that's the daily double."

It's a slow, lumbering and fairly ill armoured vehicle that relies on the weight of inaccurate fire against a galaxy of enemies who can outmanoeuvre it. I'm pretty sure a company of T-72s could take this thing out.

>T-72s
You know it's armor is stronger than the shells that a T-72 can fire?

Which is precisely why we don't make armour out of tank rounds, and instead use armour

>Fairly ill-armoured

I don't know, most of the Baneblade chassis designs are usually portrayed as quite a bit tougher than the Leman Russ, which is already tougher than the main battle tanks of every other faction in the setting. These things are extremely durable against anything that's not a Titan-class weapon from the front.

Everybody take cover and grab popcorn, a discussion of 40k armor physical thickness vs RHA equivalent thickness incoming.

Leman Russ only has 15cm equivalent RHA thickness. Old pictures are still valid, haven't been superseded.

>Hasn't been superseded

Not directly, no.

>Old pictures are still valid

Arguable and virtually no indication either way unless we use in-'verse comparisons against AT weapons, which we also don't know the output of.

Anyone who argues it any further is wasting time.

you could easily lose it.

>Everybody take cover and grab popcorn, a discussion of 40k armor physical thickness vs RHA equivalent thickness incoming.
But the wyvern ignores cover saves.

You know, for a universe that generally takes everything up to 11 to show how powerful many things in that universe are, the Imperium vehicles tend to do the opposite of that. Where as a Space Marine looks and feels far more dangerous than even the best guys in the USMC's Force Recon group, or Karskin looking far more protective in their gear than the prototype exoskeleton suits that we have today, you have Rhinos/Razorbacks/Chimeras that are far inferior to any APC that has been in wide use since the 90s, with all the tanks widely inferior to anything post-Vietnam. Even size wise a Baneblade is barely able to match the size of modern tanks so it's not like it's super huge or anything. Unlike Ork battle wagons or that one huge Imperial Fists moving city fortress or Knights/Titans/Daemon Engines there isn't a sense of overthetop protective armor on them either.

It's also partly why I love the Spartan Assault Tank along with the fact that it has references to Rogue Trader. Sure the overall design is based on now obsolete WW1 tanks, but to make it work it has some changes from the Rogue Trader Land Raider/WW1 tank design to make more sense in a modern context, and is fucking huge and VERY well armored. The Spartan is a legit tank of the future having the armor, firepower, and transport capacity to be a tank of the future.

Doesn't have both pairs of Sponsons.

The flavor is a big part of it though. 40k has to preserve the old-ways-reborn feel despite tech being far ahead. To modern eyes, that means moving the fluff of war back a step from whatever the modern cutting edge is.

Hence, WW2 as the main influence, with occasional influences from WW1 or the Cold War.

I don't mind that the tanks look inferior, because that's part of the setup. Bringing in shaped charges and smart missiles as routine equipment would ruin that, and the tanks are perfectly fine for what they are designed as: logistically reliable and hardened against plain explosives and energy weapons.

It's the same as Space Marines. Instead of advancing in doctrine/quality, they stay in an older paradigm of war, but then turn the numbers up to 11.

Not a fortress of arrogance.

Rivets.
One of those things gets knocked loose & ricochets thru the fighting compartment, it's gonna be just as bad as a penetrating hit.

Crew coordination.
OK, 2 main gunners, 2 loaders, 3-5 sponson gunners, probably a radio operator, driver. Your commander's gonna have a bitch of a time directing these guys while looking out the turret hatch. Unless you have a spotter there, and the TC just sits in the center of the hull, Jim Kirk style.

Also, that sponson-turret combo is gonna be cramped as fuck, unless you've got one guy running both.

Yes, it's a rule of cool game, not a realistic tank sim. But you asked for flaws.

>fixed fore cannon is redundant, and wastes space and ammo
>so does the forward mini-turret
>exposed treads like it's fucking 1918
>no turret-mounted MG for 360-degree close-in coverage
>reserve fuel exposed to enemy fire
>size is a hindrance in tight urban areas
>no entrenchment tools or spare tread links to be seen
5/10 - entirely outclassed by one or two Bradleys or BMP-2s on its own, but still an excellent en-masse force multiplier/battle taxi.

Probably unable to traverse any/all terrain, and literally unsalvageable once it's bogged down short of a pair of titans team lifting it.

Can it fly?

It's not a stormblade

There are so many too choose, I can't pick one

What is optimised stealth cadre?

Nice coaxial lascannon there.

See
This

>Arguable and virtually no indication either way unless we use in-'verse comparisons against AT weapons, which we also don't know the output of.

I dunno, armor is rated as 'equal to X amount of RHA' and weapons are rated as 'will penetrate X amount of RHA at X distance'. 40k vehicles suck from a technical standpoint because the writers didn't know/care, pic related.

That said, if somebody finds and shows me something where the physical thickness of the armor matters more than the RHA equivalent, you've pretty much won.

>faction develops ATGMs with 40k spacemagic tech warheads
How fucked are Imperial tank crews? Could they even survive a hit from a modern one?

Wot is this, a tank for grots?

All of a baneblade's turrets are computerized (unlike the Russ), so they are in fact not inaccurate at all and that's what makes the Baneblade such a daunting opponent.

What are Hunter-Killer missiles?

Wrong link dumbass

>120mm

That gun is way fucking bigger than 120...

user that was all retconned.

Baneblades can survive being hit with a tactical nuke that sends them flying a hundred feet in the air.

What is "STEEL RAAAAAAAAIN" "Template weapons" and "Flyers"

>40k vehicles suck from a technical standpoint

326 years of active service says otherwise.

Necron's analysis of the Leman Russ claims that it is a piece of engineering marvel...ruined by monkey's ignorance and tinkering with it.

Yeah imperial tanks are trash, right? They seem to lose, like hundreds or thousands at a time.
Oh, wait, maybe that's the whole point of imperial guard. They're a massive horde of shitty humans in shitty gear with casualties cranked to 11, and yet still have the numbers to win.

Dummy.

It is Jim Kirk style.
Also, the heavy bolter/lascannon turrets are automated, but I think it still has a crew of like 9 to 11 all told.

This.

>All of a baneblade's turrets

According to IA, early models had remote operated sponsons. Later ones had crewed ones.

Have one that you can actually see the details on.

the price you paid for this plastic box

not enough SKULLS

I'm jealous of that Leman Russ

Didn't know the World Eaters had techmarines.

Or glue.

1) A decent chopper or strike craft can blow it up easily once it sinks into the ground under its own weight.

2) Subsidary to 1) and the weight issue. We don't need a pillbox, we need a support tank.

>Rivets.

Assuming they're actually rivets and not like molecular bonding studs found on Marine armour.

Kharn, are we the baddies?

It's an autocannon. You can see the ammo box on the side.

You realize the models aren't actually what the tanks look like, right?

good job missing the joke retard

Ain't looted

What I don't realize is what you're getting at here.

The models are just an interpretation of the actual appearance of the vehicles, based around the perceptions of the occupants of the universe. The actual vehicles are so far advanced compared to us that trying to model them as such would be impossible; instead, they're modeled based around their aesthetic and 'feel.' That's why Imperial vehicles are modeled like WW1 tanks with exposed treads and rivets and poor design, because in-universe they're effectively the equivalent of those vehicles, outmoded and outdated. That would be impossible to portray with models of the real vehicles.

Can you give the new thicknesses? the document that says 'this is no longer valid'? give me something to work with here.

All the art of the vehicles also include "rivets". Are those just lies as well, pulled over our eyes to hide the fact that 40k vehicles are more like electric razors than WW1 tonks?

That's a loaded way of explaining it but yes.

Doesn't have a single plasma based weapon system.

Well that's the way you said it.

Also, do give some evidence of this claim.

It's not a lie, it's a modelling practice.

It's in Rogue Trader somewhere.

Yeah, it says that just because all the Imperial stuff looks crude and shit, doesn't mean it's not high tech. It doesn't mean that the Leman Russ is actually a sleek futuristic hover tank and all the art and models are just lies. It really does look like it, despite having targeting systems, high-energy generators, energy weapons, auto-loading and warning systems.

Like I said, rivets on tanks can be like molecular bonding studs on Marine armour. It's sort of implied that it's not a mere rivet punched through the armour to bond two plates together, they're used to add plates on top of armour, so it's possible they work on some other way.

...Dude,*you're* the one who missed the joke...

Needs more Dakka! Also paint it red.

Sure you can't fit a few more weapons on it?

Well, it doesn't look like it has Hunter-Killers or any pintle mounts...

There's room for a 3rd set of sponsons, a hull demolisher cannon and pintle gun on every hatch.