Post by Pop goes the world on Nov 23, 2009 22:56:34 GMT -6
-or- A historian and former tanker's analysis of why it would suck to be an Imperial vehicle crewman.
I love 40K miniatures. I often bitch about the system, and lament the "infantilization" of the game, but I have always loved the miniatures. I love the detail, the design, the story each model tells. I love building, and painting the models.
-However-
For many years, a number of things have bothered me about the Imperial vehicle designs, both IG and Space marine. I appreciate that GW tried to make the vehicles look like an amalgamation of 20th Century vehicles with a sci-fi twist, but there are some major design flaws. If they were turned into real vehicles, they would have many woeful inefficiencies that would make their operation in combat situations nearly impossible. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon the awful designs that tactically and mechanically ruin of the many Imperial vehicles.
The Rhino Chassis and it's variants
The Rhino is one of the most ambidextrous vehicles in the imperial arsenal. The chassis is used for everything from command vehicles, weapons platforms, troop transports, you name it. However, it suffers for several critical design flaws- Some of these design flaws are historically based- by appearances, the Rhino seems to be a cross between an M113 and a WWI tank (most of the Imperial vehicles share similarities with WWI vehicles), and it shares many of the problems that these two vehicles had-
- Tracks and Suspension-
Like most Imperial vehicles, the Rhino lacks any form of suspension completely. Like WWI tanks, the track runs on fixed roadwheels sandwiched between slabs of metal. At the very least, it would provide a bumpy ride- at worst, it would be unable to navigate uneven terrain, and get habitually stuck on large rocks or mounds of earth. The close proximity of the track to the armor plating would make the Rhino prone to track stoppages as rocks and caked-up mud got stuck in the running gear. Likewise, the crew would be hard-pressed to repair the track should it get stuck or damaged, considering that the majority of the track is under heavy, bolted-on armor plating. The majority of the plating would have to be removed in order to maintain or replace the track, making it difficult under adverse conditions. Likewise, the track extends over the top of the vehicle, making it more prone to damage from enemy weapons. Even a glancing hit to the armor around the track could cause the armor to buckle and impede the operation of the track. Likewise, the rhino has no sprocket with which to drive the track (how the track is propelled is unclear). The suspension is a crewman's worst nightmare. Likewise, each side of the Rhino's running gear requires a special type of track with a specially-placed center-guide, making logistics support and maintenance difficult.
-Superstructure-
The hull and superstructure of the Rhino closely resembles an American M113 in basic design, just with the added addition of top-running track, and side hatches. Like the M113, the engine and transmission of the Rhino are located in the front of the vehicle. In combat situations, this presents a major problem- any penetrating front-damage to the vehicle, or metal fragments knocked around by a particularly hard glancing hit, could disable the engine or transmission. This could quickly put an end to many assaults. Likewise, the majority of the armor on the vehicle appears to be riveted on, as opposed to welded. Riveted vehicles are far weaker than welded ones, as rivets break off easily when a piece of armor is his by enemy fire. The exposed, upward facing exhaust system (which inexplicably includes 4 separate pipes) would make it vulnerable to fire, and present a broad heat signature.
-Problems with Variants-
-Vindicator- The vindicator's fixed main devastator cannon does not have any traverse; only vertical elevation. This means that the entire vehicle would have to turn in order for the gunner to make even the slightest adjustments in his sights. Horrible for target acquisition and adjusting fire.
-Razorback and Predator- The high profile and relative exposure of the weapons system on the Razorback and Predator would leave it vulnerable to enemy fire, and difficult to hide. On the plus side, it would be handy for hull-down fire, as the vehicle does not have to be exposed in order to fire.
Land Raider
-Suspension-
The Landraider suffers from many of the same problems as the Rhino in regards to suspension and running gear, only exacerbated by the increased size and profile of the Landraider. The track is one of the most prominant features of the Landraider, making it incredibly susceptible to enemy fire and mobility kills. The track on the landraider sticks out substantially from the hull, meaning that in rough terrain, or when hitting an obstacle, the track (the most fragile part of the vehicle) takes the full force of the impact.
-Superstructure- While the engine, exhaust, and transmission of the Landraider are located safely in the rear of the vehicle, the engine compartment opens into the crew compartment, allowing access, but also fumes and residue to travel into the crew stations, and for loose equipment to fall into the engine compartment. The front loading ramp of the Landraider would present a wide variety of problems. The opening faces directly into enemy fire, and the gap between the two doors would leave the crew vulnerable to attack. Even light damage could impede the opening of the doors, making them useless. Likewise, the moving components of the front ramp are located on the very front of the hull, an area which often bears the brunt of the terrain, meaning that mud, rocks, and debris could easily get stuck in them. Do not think that small things cannot hurt big vehicles- I have personally seen a single track end-connector (a roughly 4-inch chunk of metal) immobilize the entire turret of an M1A2 Abrams. Also, it is unclear where the crew sits in the Rhino- there are hatches on the top of the vehicle, but no ladders or stands allowing access to them. The driving, if not done by the "machine Spirit," would have to be done from the top hatches- meaning INCREDIBLY reduced visibility on an incredibly high-profile vehicle.
-Weapons Systems-
Like the Razorback, the Landraider weapons systems are relatively unarmored, making them vulnerable. Likewise, the side sponsons are open to both fire and the elements, making the vehicle unnecessarily wide and unwieldy.
-The Chimera Chassis and it's variants-
-Suspension- Same as the aforementioned vehicles. The Chimera seems like a combination between an Warsaw Pact BMP and, like everything, a WWI tank.
-Hull and Superstructure- Like the Rhino, the hull is riveted, making it weaker. The vehicle is relatively low profile, but again, suffers from having the engine and transmission in the front.
-Weapons systems- The turret on most Chimera variants is very small, which wile keeping a low profile, means much of the crewman's position extends into the already crowded hull. The lasgun ports, like on early models of the American Bradley fighting vehicle, are largely pointless, and point only to the sides of the vehicle. the hull-mounted weapon, which has a very narrow range of fire, is positioned above the engine and transmission, limiting space in the crew compartment.
-The Leman Russ-
-Suspension- Same as above.
-Hull and Superstructure- For once, the engine and transmission are located in the rear of the vehicle! Unfortunately, the access doors are small, meaning most engine maintenance would have to be done by using a crane to pull the whole engine out of the hull (which, while not uncommon in fighting vehicles, is still a pain in the ass). The hull is very tall, almost unnecessarily so, making a high-profile target. Also, the forward-facing driver's hatch would be susceptible to enemy fire, and the driver has a window instead of a periscope, providing an unfortunately-placed and easily exploitable soft spot.
-Weapons systems-The turret on the Leman Russ is very small- similar to that of the T 34/76. This means that the commander is also most likely also the loader and gunner, meaning his attentions are split between fighting his tank, acquiring targets, firing the main gun, and loading the gun. While this means that the ammo is not stored in the turret (a potential benefit), the commander will be quite distracted. Likewise, the hull weapons systems could not be fired while in a hull-down position, making them largely worthless in the defense.
-The Baneblade and it's variants
... I mean, just look at that thing- it is a mess. It suffers from ALL of the aforementioned problems to some degree. The closest historical example is perhaps the Russian T-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35), which was a complete and utter failure. Super heavy tanks, as a general rule, are for shit. They are giant, slow, heavy, and vulnerable in all the same ways as their smaller counterparts.
As I hope I've made evident, Imperial vehicle design is just horrible. While standardization across a galactic empire is important, and archaic Imperial technology cannot often keep up with the demands of the battlefield, these vehicles leave a great deal to be desired. Like the crewmen of the first tanks in WWI, life for an Imperial crewman would be brutal, uncomfortable, and short.
I love 40K miniatures. I often bitch about the system, and lament the "infantilization" of the game, but I have always loved the miniatures. I love the detail, the design, the story each model tells. I love building, and painting the models.
-However-
For many years, a number of things have bothered me about the Imperial vehicle designs, both IG and Space marine. I appreciate that GW tried to make the vehicles look like an amalgamation of 20th Century vehicles with a sci-fi twist, but there are some major design flaws. If they were turned into real vehicles, they would have many woeful inefficiencies that would make their operation in combat situations nearly impossible. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon the awful designs that tactically and mechanically ruin of the many Imperial vehicles.
The Rhino Chassis and it's variants
The Rhino is one of the most ambidextrous vehicles in the imperial arsenal. The chassis is used for everything from command vehicles, weapons platforms, troop transports, you name it. However, it suffers for several critical design flaws- Some of these design flaws are historically based- by appearances, the Rhino seems to be a cross between an M113 and a WWI tank (most of the Imperial vehicles share similarities with WWI vehicles), and it shares many of the problems that these two vehicles had-
- Tracks and Suspension-
Like most Imperial vehicles, the Rhino lacks any form of suspension completely. Like WWI tanks, the track runs on fixed roadwheels sandwiched between slabs of metal. At the very least, it would provide a bumpy ride- at worst, it would be unable to navigate uneven terrain, and get habitually stuck on large rocks or mounds of earth. The close proximity of the track to the armor plating would make the Rhino prone to track stoppages as rocks and caked-up mud got stuck in the running gear. Likewise, the crew would be hard-pressed to repair the track should it get stuck or damaged, considering that the majority of the track is under heavy, bolted-on armor plating. The majority of the plating would have to be removed in order to maintain or replace the track, making it difficult under adverse conditions. Likewise, the track extends over the top of the vehicle, making it more prone to damage from enemy weapons. Even a glancing hit to the armor around the track could cause the armor to buckle and impede the operation of the track. Likewise, the rhino has no sprocket with which to drive the track (how the track is propelled is unclear). The suspension is a crewman's worst nightmare. Likewise, each side of the Rhino's running gear requires a special type of track with a specially-placed center-guide, making logistics support and maintenance difficult.
-Superstructure-
The hull and superstructure of the Rhino closely resembles an American M113 in basic design, just with the added addition of top-running track, and side hatches. Like the M113, the engine and transmission of the Rhino are located in the front of the vehicle. In combat situations, this presents a major problem- any penetrating front-damage to the vehicle, or metal fragments knocked around by a particularly hard glancing hit, could disable the engine or transmission. This could quickly put an end to many assaults. Likewise, the majority of the armor on the vehicle appears to be riveted on, as opposed to welded. Riveted vehicles are far weaker than welded ones, as rivets break off easily when a piece of armor is his by enemy fire. The exposed, upward facing exhaust system (which inexplicably includes 4 separate pipes) would make it vulnerable to fire, and present a broad heat signature.
-Problems with Variants-
-Vindicator- The vindicator's fixed main devastator cannon does not have any traverse; only vertical elevation. This means that the entire vehicle would have to turn in order for the gunner to make even the slightest adjustments in his sights. Horrible for target acquisition and adjusting fire.
-Razorback and Predator- The high profile and relative exposure of the weapons system on the Razorback and Predator would leave it vulnerable to enemy fire, and difficult to hide. On the plus side, it would be handy for hull-down fire, as the vehicle does not have to be exposed in order to fire.
Land Raider
-Suspension-
The Landraider suffers from many of the same problems as the Rhino in regards to suspension and running gear, only exacerbated by the increased size and profile of the Landraider. The track is one of the most prominant features of the Landraider, making it incredibly susceptible to enemy fire and mobility kills. The track on the landraider sticks out substantially from the hull, meaning that in rough terrain, or when hitting an obstacle, the track (the most fragile part of the vehicle) takes the full force of the impact.
-Superstructure- While the engine, exhaust, and transmission of the Landraider are located safely in the rear of the vehicle, the engine compartment opens into the crew compartment, allowing access, but also fumes and residue to travel into the crew stations, and for loose equipment to fall into the engine compartment. The front loading ramp of the Landraider would present a wide variety of problems. The opening faces directly into enemy fire, and the gap between the two doors would leave the crew vulnerable to attack. Even light damage could impede the opening of the doors, making them useless. Likewise, the moving components of the front ramp are located on the very front of the hull, an area which often bears the brunt of the terrain, meaning that mud, rocks, and debris could easily get stuck in them. Do not think that small things cannot hurt big vehicles- I have personally seen a single track end-connector (a roughly 4-inch chunk of metal) immobilize the entire turret of an M1A2 Abrams. Also, it is unclear where the crew sits in the Rhino- there are hatches on the top of the vehicle, but no ladders or stands allowing access to them. The driving, if not done by the "machine Spirit," would have to be done from the top hatches- meaning INCREDIBLY reduced visibility on an incredibly high-profile vehicle.
-Weapons Systems-
Like the Razorback, the Landraider weapons systems are relatively unarmored, making them vulnerable. Likewise, the side sponsons are open to both fire and the elements, making the vehicle unnecessarily wide and unwieldy.
-The Chimera Chassis and it's variants-
-Suspension- Same as the aforementioned vehicles. The Chimera seems like a combination between an Warsaw Pact BMP and, like everything, a WWI tank.
-Hull and Superstructure- Like the Rhino, the hull is riveted, making it weaker. The vehicle is relatively low profile, but again, suffers from having the engine and transmission in the front.
-Weapons systems- The turret on most Chimera variants is very small, which wile keeping a low profile, means much of the crewman's position extends into the already crowded hull. The lasgun ports, like on early models of the American Bradley fighting vehicle, are largely pointless, and point only to the sides of the vehicle. the hull-mounted weapon, which has a very narrow range of fire, is positioned above the engine and transmission, limiting space in the crew compartment.
-The Leman Russ-
-Suspension- Same as above.
-Hull and Superstructure- For once, the engine and transmission are located in the rear of the vehicle! Unfortunately, the access doors are small, meaning most engine maintenance would have to be done by using a crane to pull the whole engine out of the hull (which, while not uncommon in fighting vehicles, is still a pain in the ass). The hull is very tall, almost unnecessarily so, making a high-profile target. Also, the forward-facing driver's hatch would be susceptible to enemy fire, and the driver has a window instead of a periscope, providing an unfortunately-placed and easily exploitable soft spot.
-Weapons systems-The turret on the Leman Russ is very small- similar to that of the T 34/76. This means that the commander is also most likely also the loader and gunner, meaning his attentions are split between fighting his tank, acquiring targets, firing the main gun, and loading the gun. While this means that the ammo is not stored in the turret (a potential benefit), the commander will be quite distracted. Likewise, the hull weapons systems could not be fired while in a hull-down position, making them largely worthless in the defense.
-The Baneblade and it's variants
... I mean, just look at that thing- it is a mess. It suffers from ALL of the aforementioned problems to some degree. The closest historical example is perhaps the Russian T-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35), which was a complete and utter failure. Super heavy tanks, as a general rule, are for shit. They are giant, slow, heavy, and vulnerable in all the same ways as their smaller counterparts.
As I hope I've made evident, Imperial vehicle design is just horrible. While standardization across a galactic empire is important, and archaic Imperial technology cannot often keep up with the demands of the battlefield, these vehicles leave a great deal to be desired. Like the crewmen of the first tanks in WWI, life for an Imperial crewman would be brutal, uncomfortable, and short.
