Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:I intuitively play Guard wrong, i.e. I don't take Russes because the model is ugly, I don't use plasma weapons or Veterans, etc.

You know, being hulled in angular plate, the Russ is easily "fixable".

If you go to my website (under 40k / IG), you can see how I converted mine... Maybe they give you some ideas of things that you might try?

A conversion I saw only once and that I'd like to try was one where the entire hull of the tank was elongated by a good 40-50%, it looked rather like the French Char B1, or the British Medium Tanks of the after-WW1 period. I don't know if I could pull it off, though.

Here's the sort of thing I've done so far: http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s319/agamemnon667/. All of it very basic, really.

I think I saw that, too. The problem for me is that the tracks are still too narrow. To me, Russes have more of a StuG / Hetzer profile with their narrow tracks.

If/when GW redesigns the Russ with appropriately wide (Land Raider-width) tracks, I'll revisit the armor.
____

Oh, I see you're a big fan of the pre-WW2 style.

Salamander's quite good - at least you pay some notion of not having the tracks throw stuff on the crew all the time.

Is the Mk.IV the Emhar model? It seems small, esp. compared to the infantry.

I wish I could find it again, I only have a vague remembrance of it.

An idea I'd like to try maybe is continuing the track shoes past the outer plate of the track unit. A bit like German Ostketten. The easiest way to get more traction surface without having to redesign the entire track units.

As it is now the tracks really seem too thin to support a vehicle of that sizes weight. The only scifi justification is if it were some how made of materials that were incredibly light... but that doesn't sound all that imperial. A leman russ or any tank with a similar track set would likey sink and get stuck in the mud or whatever other poor terrain its trying to crawl through.

I'm actually surprised no one has come out with a generic scifi tractor wheel set that coincedentally makes for a wider track set when coincedentally fitted with a Leman Russ kit.

@aka: It'd be polishing a turd.

You'd need all new tracks (which wouldn't need wheels at all, because you can't see them).

But doing that reveals that the hull is badly-shaped, so you need a new upper hull.

Then you see the front has a vertical face and a shot trap, so you need a new lower hull. Might as well elongate and reshape the whole thing Mars Alpha-style.

And then the turret looks bad. So you redo that, DKOK Russ-style.

At that point, you can't use the sponsons, because they look stupid.

And all you've kept were the track plates.

So it's a non-starter of a project.

I wonder if they would ever consider remaking the Russ and Chimera kits. I really don't think they would, alas. It's probably not a concern for GW proper, but FW would lose a good percentage of their catalogue overnight.

The Chimera doesn't really need a rework, so it doesn't affect so much.

The Russ-based kits would only get better.

Besides, look at the new Arkurian Baneblade variants - good stuff!

I'd be happy if the Chimera sprues could be recut for a better turret with more weapons options. and replace that horrible hull HB while you're at it.

Chimera will receive slimmer side engine sponsons and a reworked, larger turret. The Russ will feature a new angular turret that looks more sci-fi.

Agamemnon2 wrote:I wish I could find it again, I only have a vague remembrance of it.

An idea I'd like to try maybe is continuing the track shoes past the outer plate of the track unit. A bit like German Ostketten. The easiest way to get more traction surface without having to redesign the entire track units.

Heres a relatively easy conversion that updates the look of IG tanks. It's amusing how simple it is to modernize its form.

That's a nice job of polishing.

Except, that while different, still doesn't address the fundamental problems:
- overall too small (should be near Land Raider size)
- tracks too narrow (again, see the Land Raider)
- gun barrel too large (see FW DKOK Russ)
- insane shot traps into vertical plates everywhere

And the reversal won't work. Recoil forces (or just driving uphill) will tip the tank backwards.

I don't think the Russ can be fixed by anything short of a full redesign from the ground up.

Yeah, but if those are your complaints there are plenty of vehicles that need a total redesign. There isn't really a single realistic human armored vehicle design in existence in the game. Most complaints that I hear (not from you guys, but from friends) is that its just too boxy and ww1 looking. Spinning the hull around and providing a more angular and flush covering for the barrel base accomplishes that fairly well.

Keep in mind, nothing with relatively large sponsons is going to really look realistic.


It could be worse!

If you look at the Imperial Tanks of 40k:

Rhino - Mk.1 isn't a horrible rendition of the M113 for it's time, but the current Mk.2 didn't go far enough. I hate this model. ** (2/5)

Land Raider - Mk.1 is just silly, while the current Mk.2 is quite good aside from being missing 1/4" ground clearance. **** (4/5)

Chimera - a solid vehicle, the only faults are the porthole guns (dated, but not unrealistic) and the overwidth side pontoons (easily fixed). Larger turret would be appreciated. Tracks are overly fiddly, and should be redesigned for assembly, along with incorporating proper track guards. I like this model a lot. ***** (5/5)

Leman Russ - I hate this vehicle even more than the Rhino, for the reasons given earlier. It's only acceptable as a raw chassis for Hetzer-type mono-gun carrier. Only a total redesign works here. *

Baneblade - I have one, but find it rather disappointing, due to the insistence on making the tank "big" by going tall, rather than long. I'm doing major redesign work here as well, and hope to finish it in the next few months. Now this isn't a terrible tank by any means, but the FW Mars is clearly better, so it's too bad GW deviated from directly translating FW into plastic like they did with the Vindicator. **** (4/5)

The Grav Tanks are generally better, not having the Rhino and Russ to drag them down.

Eldar Falcon - quite good and has aged nicely. ***** (5/5)

Tau Devilfish - This iust isn't right. The masses don't sit well together, and the curves don't match the armor or infantry. Decent model, but not really properly "Tau". *** (3/3)

Tiny tanks are cute and fun. I've made one, myself, but different. I should get a picture up.

The falcon isn't really a workable design, its main underside gun pinion has to aim through the frontal wings of the vehicle to hit anything at any kind of angle. It also has a large open glass cockpit, which is just stupid.

As for the rest the Chimera is alright but the only other tank you listed as functional is the land raider, which is just silly. Sponsons as the primary armament of a tank that is otherwise highly streamlined doesn't work too well. It can't effectively aim at anything behind or directly in front of it with its primary weaponry and the low weapon clearance means that it would have a difficult time shooting over small ledges or walls thus making hull down positions essentially useless. It also doesn't help that the fragile sponson mounted weaponry could easily be destroyed if the tank drove too close to a tree or building.

None of the ground vehicles in 40k are realistic. They are designed to be gothic WW1 and WW2 era battletanks with futuristic weaponry sticking out of every corner. They are getting better then they were in this respect though, hopefully we will se a suitable design soon.

The Falcon has a primary gun turret covering the top half, and the lower gun covering the lower half (to the front). If you consider how many aircraft have fixed in-line guns, an aimable gun is quite an improvment. As for glazed cockpits, F-16 Falcon / A-10 Warthog have glazed cockpits that are even more exposed, and we're OK with those...

As AV14 the Land Raider doesn't need Hull Down. It's the same reason Sv3+ SM don't care about 4+ Cover Saves. And obviusly, those AV14 sponsons would just cut through trees / buildings.

I think that there's quite a bit of difference between a f-16 and an eldar main battletank, no matter how much it can float. An f-16 can be brought down by a 9 millimeter pistol, it just never gets shot at by one and a 9 mil round wont go that high anyway. A transport tank should be a bit hardier than that!

Oh look! The two biggest trol.... nah it's been done.






BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh look! The two biggest trol.... nah it's been done.






BYE

I'm disappointed Shummy. While DD might be a blockhead unable to see beyond his own opinion, you, of all people, should've seen the humour in my post.



BYE

What about one of those, er, "helicopter gunships' or whatever they're called. Not heavily-armored, yet they swoop down to the LZ and drop people off and such, right?

Also, remember that the Falcon is protected by holo-fields, which make it very difficult to hit.

Oh you mean Landspeeder storms? Sorry but just like all the goodies IG used to have, they've been requisitioned by the Marines.

The Imperial Guard has the Vulture and Valkyrie.

One my personal design favorites is this one: http://www.panzershop.iol.cz/NewPS35C148.jpg. It's about as impractical as the Russ, but unlike it, doesn't violate laws of physics. Both the Leman Russ and British WW1 tanks look to be built on the assumption that you can just bolt enough armor to a chassis not to have to worry about shot traps and deflection.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Eldar Falcon - is the Bernini's David of tanks and has aged nicely. ***** (5/5)

Tau Devilfish - This iust isn't right. The masses don't sit well together, and the curves don't match the armor or infantry. Decent model, but not really properly "Tau". *** (3/3)

Tiny tanks are cute and fun. I've made one, myself, but different. I should get a picture up.

There, fixed your typo.

Fluffwise you're assuming thats glass. Thats transparent wraithbone...

Now I will give that the Valkyrie and Chaos Helltalon are now equally impressive, but for the time the falcon came out, it was pure sweet.

Soooooo.............., anyone got anymore rumors on the IG? I mean, since that's the topic and all. Lord knows I ramble with the best, but if you got insider info I'd sure love to hear it.

Agamemnon2 wrote:One my personal design favorites is this one: http://www.panzershop.iol.cz/NewPS35C148.jpg. It's about as impractical as the Russ, but unlike it, doesn't violate laws of physics. Both the Leman Russ and British WW1 tanks look to be built on the assumption that you can just bolt enough armor to a chassis not to have to worry about shot traps and deflection.

I've seen 40k conversions along these very same lines, because that's where the current 40k design naturally leads.

ShumaGorath wrote:I think that there's quite a bit of difference between a f-16 and an eldar main battletank, no matter how much it can float. An f-16 can be brought down by a 9 millimeter pistol, it just never gets shot at by one and a 9 mil round wont go that high anyway. A transport tank should be a bit hardier than that!

F-16 canopies are composed of bullet-proof composites (also referred to as bird-proof). It isn't a huge stretch to imagine that the Eldar have done us a little better in the ensuing 38,000 years.

The Falcon is more like a Hind attack helo than a MBT. It´s not supposed to stand and deliver but rather to make passes over the battlefield taking potshots to anything in LOS. But of course YMMV.

M.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I think that there's quite a bit of difference between a f-16 and an eldar main battletank, no matter how much it can float. An f-16 can be brought down by a 9 millimeter pistol, it just never gets shot at by one and a 9 mil round wont go that high anyway. A transport tank should be a bit hardier than that!

F-16 canopies are composed of bullet-proof composites (also referred to as bird-proof). It isn't a huge stretch to imagine that the Eldar have done us a little better in the ensuing 38,000 years.

Yeah, but it's still a little bit unreasonable considering the ordinance that is going to be shot at it. If the cockpit isn't vulnerable because of a half inch of some sort of superglass/plastic/wratihbone material, why don't they just make the tank out of it? Since its 38'000 years in the future and the eldar are millions of years older then that you would think that they could just use some really nice cameras or something, instead of requiring the driver to use an open cockpit.

ShumaGorath wrote:If the cockpit isn't vulnerable because of a half inch of some sort of superglass/plastic/wratihbone material, why don't they just make the tank out of it?

Isn't that the same argument as the "If the black box survives the plane crash, why not make the plane out of that stuff!". I don't think it works that way.

ShumaGorath wrote:Since its 38'000 years in the future and the eldar are millions of years older then that you would think that they could just use some really nice cameras or something, instead of requiring the driver to use an open cockpit.

That did that with the Wave Serpent, and everyone complained it looked like a Tau turret on an Eldar Tank (and they were right).

BYE