Realism in Equipment Design

[Iron Father Ferrum]

This came up (this time!) in the NRBA thread on the new Kratos tank, and there was enough contribution that I felt it warranted it's own discussion thread.  The triggering comment, courtesy of yours truly, was that I dislike the visual design of the Kratos because it is fairly unrealistic.  My main point being that the main gun in the turret appears to lack any appreciable ability to depress the gun, limiting the tank's ability to engage targets directly to its fore.  Other contributors pointed out other issues, such as the presence of shot-traps in the turret or hull front and the use of sponson-mounted weapons.

 

This is not a new paradigm for GW's overall equipment designs -- and they're not limited to just tanks, either.  Before the introduction of Primaris, a common complaint amongst Astartes players was that the ejection port on the Godwyn-pattern bolter didn't actually line up with the muzzle, indicating that the weapon's chamber was not actually aligned with the barrel.  The most egregious example in a small arms design like this is actually Azrael's bullpup-style combi-plasma, which had the magazine well in the stock but the actual chamber was in the front body of the weapon with zero appreciable space for a linkage from one to the other.

 

I'm willing to forgive certain design cues that are counter to common sense, like the use of sponsons on battle tanks.  But something like the Kratos' turret, which makes it impossible for the main gun to shoot anything close in (because the breach doesn't have the room to elevate within the turret as the barrel depressed downward) bothers me as a simple and obvious design flaw that would have been discovered during testing or in battle.

 

Feel free to discuss but bear in mind that this is going to be an entirely subjective discussion -- don't expect anyone to change their mind.

[Portman]

It's not just Space Marine equipment - look at the Leman Russ. A massive barrel, and the commander standing up where the breech should be...

 

[Evil Eye]

I think there is a certain level of silliness that can be excused by rule of cool, and for the most part I feel like 40K is OK on that front. The bolter ejector port was actually something I'd never noticed before, but I can excuse it as a rather overcomplicated ejection system that doesn't chuck the cases "straight out" of the chamber. Admittedly my knowledge of firerarms is rather...limited but it's not enough of a whoopsie that it makes me feel the need to modify my bolters. The Kratos' poor elevation doesn't massively bother me either, as it seems like the sort of stupid design mistake the Imperium might actually make.

 

Generally speaking, how forgivable a realism failure is comes down to the "wrongness-to-coolness-ratio" of the model/design element. If a model/weapon is really, really cool, then it can still be utterly implausible and still have its flaws glossed over. For instance, the Macharius Vanquisher. It looks awesome, a massive slab of armoured goodness, but technically there's no room for any crew in the turret at all if you account for the breeches of the twin guns. However, it looks amazing enough that for the most part we can ignore this. A model with an even better wrongness-to-coolness ratio is the Malcador, which has an entirely mechanically feasible but tactically stupid turret design where the gun is on a limited traverse inside a sort of dorsal pillbox. This is of course a terrible design for a tank but, as it looks awesome and isn't technically impossible, it gets away with it. A model that DOESN'T pass the ratio test is the shotgun gauntlet...thing on the Necromunda enforcers, where the shells are sculpted backwards. Easy enough to fix as it's just a panel line, but it adds nothing cool to the model and unmodified makes the thing look patently absurd.

[Gederas]

My main point being that the main gun in the turret appears to lack any appreciable ability to depress the gun, limiting the tank's ability to engage targets directly to its fore.

So about that....

 

Meet the IS-2. A Tank with a whopping -5° of gun depression and CANNOT shoot targets directly in front of it. Introduced in 1944 (technically 1943 as it's an upgrade of the IS which was introduced in 1943), and saw service until.... Present Day. Albeit the ones in active service are in the Korean People's Army, but still a tank in continual active service for almost 80 years.

 

It's role was to shoot and bunkers with it's 122mm HE shells, and/or it's concrete busting solid shot, just like the Kratos. It cannot effectively engage smaller targets directly in front of it, but that wasn't it's job, And the IS-2 didn't even have a pintle-mounted machine gun that could shoot at ground targets either (it was locked to anti-air)

 

Which means that this tank was effectively helpless to anything directly in front of it that wasn't another tank, but that's okay because that wasn't this tank's job, It's an assault tank in the sense that it's assaulting positions. It's made to break fortifications and bunkers and CAN shoot at other tanks (and utterly annihilate them) but that's not it's intended purpose.

 

Just like the Kratos.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Gederas

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

GW has never been good a designing anything to be realistic.

Let’s face it, in the 41st millennium it doesn’t make sense to revert to WWI, and inter-war style tanks when the MBT design would be tens of thousands of years old by then. The leman Russ is objectively a terrible tank design.

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

I wanted to bring up old soviet and chinese tanks but Gederas beat me to it.

 

But to add on to what was mentioned, doctrine and geography can account for why a lack of gun depression is accepted or even what is wanted in the first place.

 

Does this make GW tanks any less ridiculous..no  but soviet/chinese tanks are always what pop into my head when realism via gun depression is brought up.  

Edited May 8, 2022 by Mechanicus Tech-Support

[Gederas]

I wanted to bring up old soviet and chinese tanks but Gederas beat me to it.

 

But to add on to what was mentioned, doctrine and geography can account for why a lack of gun depression is accepted or even what is wanted in the first place.

 

Does this make GW tanks any less ridiculous..no  but soviet/chinese tanks are always what pop into my head when realism via gun depression is brought up.  

I play World of Tanks, I'm well aware of of Soviet/Chinese vehicles and their lack of gun depression. It's gotten me fragged far, far too many times because of it....

 

 

 

 

 

(There's a joke amongst WoT players about it: "Communism doesn't allow you to be depressed, comrade!", which has been added to with "The Poles and Czechs are depressed because Communism was forced on them" as Polish and Czechoslovakian tanks, despite being part of the Communist states, actually have normal-ish levels of gun depression of -8° ).

Edited May 9, 2022 by Gederas

[WrathOfTheLion]

At least in the case of the Kratos, there's an extended area for the breech of the gun.

Edited May 9, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[Cpt_Reaper]

Disclaimer: I understand people appreciate realism in designs, but like "dork angles are tr8or" and "blud magpies stole your relics" jokes I've seen so many of them by seething masses that even well meaning comments rub me the wrong way.

 

I guess I'm in the party of "don't care about realism" when it comes to 40k designs. Or, to be more accurate, I don't want it. Yet every time the aesthetics of something in 40k comes up, specifically Imperial tanks, there are a number of comments that end up with dozens, if not hundreds, of comments saying the same thing:

 

"I hate this. It looks unrealistic because of X, Y and Z."

 

I am well aware the Russ and Land Raider are backwards. I am well aware they have no visible suspension. I am exceedingly well aware building tanks with rivets is damn near lethal to infantry allies. I do not care one bit. Because in this the Rule of Cool invalidates any and all criticisms of the designs. I love 40k because of the design aesthetic, not despite it.

 

++additional++

 

On further thought, and discussion with my group, I feel I should admit that I love Primaris and their aesthetic. I think the modern/ultramodern look suits Astartes vehicles, and the Repulsor is one of my favourite vehicles. I have been told that to love the Primaris aesthetic means I am not qualified to comment on other's tastes as "Primaris are universally hated for good reason."

Edited May 9, 2022 by Cpt_Reaper

[Sword Brother Adelard]

It always confuses me that GW think you can put belted, linked rounds in a magazine housing a la chaos space marine style. I'm not aware of any weapon that can do that. Even weapons that can take both link and magazines need separate feed points. (Such as the FN Minimi)

On the Leman Russ front, at least the lore writers have confronted the multiple issues with its design, this is the review in Warhawk:

"And of all the possible tanks to be stuck in, a Leman Russ was probably the worst. People spoke of it as the Pride of the Imperium, the greatest battle tank in human history, the mainstay of the Great Crusade. Was it . A Leman Russ was a rolling deathtrap. Its tall profile was so notoriously awful that no commander ever wanted to be squadron leader – the only thing big enough to shield a Leman Russ during operations was another Leman Russ, so better to keep the command unit ahead of you for as long as you could. Its fragile tracks were exposed and its armour was a mess of easy-to-hit vertical planes. The standard pattern sponson-bulges just presented another flat edge to destroy, another reason to be glad not to have them. The interior was noisy and prone to bursting into flames whenever a loader coughed too loudly. And, if you were truly unlucky enough to have those sponsons, there was only one escape hatch, right at the top of the main turret, and so the chances of getting out alive in case of all-too-likely disaster were practically zero. No, whoever had designed the Leman Russ – Kaska had always assumed it wasn’t actually the primarch of the VI – was a moron. Or a sadist. Or both. The only things it had going for it were cheapness, mechanical reliability and a certain rugged survivability in numbers. The design was so brutally simple that the Imperium was able to churn them out by the million. It mattered less that each individual unit was a study in self-harm when you could overwhelm a battlefield with hundreds of them. And a front-mounted lascannon at least could keep firing as long as its power packs held a charge, which made running out of shells somewhat less of a disaster. Still, all in all, the crews had few illusions about the tanks they rode into war. Deathboxes, they were called, and homewreckers, and other, earthier, names too. Infantry troopers would occasionally look askance at them, jealous of all that thick armour they had around them, but a Leman Russ tanker knew how fragile it all was really, and how going out to a las-blast was far preferable to being burned alive or buried under a wall of mud or suffocated by trapped engine smoke."

Edited May 9, 2022 by Brother Adelard

[Magos Takatus]

...so it's not the greatest tank ever created then?  

 

I think I fit somewhere in the middle of this discussion. I would like the designs of our Imperial models to look for the most part like the would work even if they are by their nature a bad or outdated design. A good example of that is Space Marine bikes. Sure, they look pretty cool but it bothers me that the ground clearance is so low on them that unless the Space Marines are assaulting planet tarmac I can't see how they wouldn't get stuck every time they ride over a small rock. I like the design but I wish they had just given it a tiny bit more space under the bike. It's not a situation like we face with the tanks that are trying to evoke the feel of vehicles from a certain time period, it's just a design that feels a bit rushed to me because of the oversight.

 

I'm also not a big fan of Space Marine Centurions because they don't look like they could walk over rough terrain and they store missiles right next to the marine's chest, but that's mainly because I don't really like the design rather than realism concerns.

[Cyrox]

Just a quick one on the gun depression - it could work like the Swedish S tank which uses its suspension to alter the main armament elevation

 

Elevation

 

Depression

 

That'll do for me

[Magos Takatus]

Just a quick one on the gun depression - it could work like the Swedish S tank which uses its suspension to alter the main armament elevation

 

Elevation

 

Depression

 

That'll do for me

It's a good job that the Kratos looks like it could have some suspension compared to other Imperial vehicles. I'd be happy with the justification in this example. 

[Dark Shepherd]

1. Its not as bad as the Primaris dunebuggy

2. Theyre still using diesel

[MARK0SIAN]

I generally forgive a lot for rule of cool. The only one that really irks me is actually on various melee or pistol weapons. Some of them are attached to the marine via a power feed that would prevent them even swinging the weapon or pointing the pistol except in a very limited arc.

 

As for vehicles, some of the design flaws are a result of rule of cool or practicalities which is fine. Something like the Leman Russ being a bad design actually adds to the authenticity of the imperium’s dogmatic approach to design and innovation. It also kind of sums up the imperial approach of “The individual quality matters little when you’re fielding a million of them.”

[N1SB]

This mention of Soviet tanks reminded me of a Chinese meme about their leadership (from the Emperors of the different dynasties to their current one), don't worry, it's not political, it's just gallows humour, and relates to the Imperium:  There is no problem.  If you find a problem, then YOU'RE the problem.  We might not fix the problem, but we CAN fix YOU.

 

I see now that the Imperial warmachine, as in the military, functions not because of these faulty designs in their warmachines, as in their tanks, but in spite of them.  A Guardsman weighs the high probability of dying in the deathtrap called a Leman Russ tank versus the absolute certainty of dying from a Commissar's gunshot for complaining about it.

 

That is the Guardsman's reality.  It's not about realism vs. the Rule of Cool.  It's about the Guardsman being REALLY worried about the Commissar behind him.

 

The Guardsman has to make the tank keep working mechanically, or he'll stop working anatomically, and with millions like him, the Imperium keeps working.

 

Another thing to consider is these tanks were designed (based on ancient pre-existing STCs, of course) by Techpriests who probably never saw a battle, nor even been outside of their hives.  I will enginseer you a vehicle that can traverse across mud even in rainy weather, as soon as you explain what mud, rain and weather is to me.

 

Listening to you guys, I now think these odd design choices are part of the grimdark joke that is Warhammer.  This is a huge revelation for me.  Thanks for that.

[Portman]

unless the Space Marines are assaulting planet tarmac ....

 

LMAO at that, superb point! 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Portman

[No Foes Remain]

In Malevolence the Kratos was decribed as a Infantry Support Tank, so it shouldn't need to shoot stuff close to it. That's the role of the infantry it's supporting, and the overal design of it seems based on the early post-WW1 pre/early-WW2 era Heavy Tanks like the Vickers Independent, Medium Mark 3 and the Grosstraktor. Because at the time, heavy tanks were needed and used to break fortifications and not to go toe-to-toe with other tanks until WW2 kicked off and spured a tank race.

[Blurf]

I think any and all realism in 40k is, and should continue to be, accidental. Designing tanks to work like tanks is stupid. They should be designing them to look rad on box arts.

 

40k is a heavy metal album cover, embrace it.

 

Also, 30k is just 40k with a pompous mustache.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Blurf

[jarms48]

It's not just Space Marine equipment - look at the Leman Russ. A massive barrel, and the commander standing up where the breech should be...

 

 

The biggest issue with the Russ is that it's a 2nd edition model that was never really changed in design. Look at the old school Rhino based vehicles and Land Raiders. Massively redesigned. That should have happened with the Russ too.

 

Just look at the FW Russes, they're definitely better. Not perfect, but they're limited to work with the current design. Even then they at least moved the hatch back and offset it. So it's not directly behind the breech. They made the front hull look a bit sleeker. 

 

 

Would be nice if GW also reduced the height of the hull and gave it some suspension as well. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by jarms48

[Arkhanist]

But something like the Kratos' turret, which makes it impossible for the main gun to shoot anything close in (because the breach doesn't have the room to elevate within the turret as the barrel depressed downward) bothers me as a simple and obvious design flaw that would have been discovered during testing or in battle.

 

From Dave Andrews that was printed in White Dwarf when Spearhead came out:

 

What's interesting about he tanks of the 41st millennium... is that they're science fiction vehicles, but unlike any you'll see elsewhere. Take Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutely no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays. Imperial Guard tanks don't even have proper, sloped armour, and that's quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed.

The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las-weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel.

 

The entire principle of 40k is that everything has ossified, experimentation and learning from experience no longer happen. You take your STC design for a low tech, simple-to-make piece of colony equipment - a tractor, say - and stick guns on it. The bigger the better!

 

Figuring out that hull mounted weapons are a bad idea because that means making holes in the front armour, or that sloped armour deflects rounds, or that shot traps just make it easier for your turret to get blown off etc can't be implemented, because that's heresy and gets you executed.

 

The call back to WW1 designs in particular is intentional, because they want to invoke that feeling that these archaic, impractical death traps are the best they know how to make from their god-box STC design, then slap plasteel and lascannons on it, produce them by the million, and send them out. The one inexhaustible resource the Imperium has in 40k has is people.

 

I mean there's a reason the Mark V design shows up so much - that's what the imperium has regressed to. The Mark V had a reputation for asphyxiating its own crew with carbon monoxide, by the way.

 

 

There's also the factor of heroic scale, so all the 40k vehicles are impractically sized for people to fit in and the guns are comically big. In the real world, we've also always been limited in tank width because they needed to be able to fit on a train carriage.

 

And it's not like humanity didn't come up with some other clunkers in WW II, due to inexperience, resource constraints, or just incompetence.

 

The Japanese Type 95 - they made thousands, yet the armour was so thin it could still be penetrated by small arms.

 

 

The US M3 Lee/Grant; they didn't know how to put a bigger gun in the turret, so they put it in the hull instead and a peashooter in the turret. It still outclassed the Italian tanks in North Africa because the armour was decent for early war. The flak 88mm would mess it right up though.

 

 

The US T28 super heavy - check out those tracks! They did, admittedly, only build 2 prototypes (it also only had -5deg depression, and 20deg traverse)

 

 

And my personal favourite, the Bob Semple from New Zealand. Literally a tractor with corrugated iron plates and a scattering of machine guns, in case the Japanese invaded.

 

[Special Officer Doofy]

Chainswords bother me so much more than the unrealistic tanks. I laughed so hard when the marine stabbed through the necron torso in the back during the 9th edition cinematic while saving the damsel in distress. Would be like stabbing a baseball bat through an engine block.

[Felix Antipodes]

Looks like the Kiwis were employing an Ork Mekboy going by that Bob Semple design 

[MegaVolt87]

The people who know things about military history, war, weaponry etc obviously will have issues with pretty much everything in 30k/40k. For the uninitiated, they just don't see the same things. I would even venture to go as far as the impracticalities are what the uninitiated finds cool as design elements!. On the other side, if designers had that kind of knowledge, maybe the uninitiated would still find the designs cool regardless and the rivet counters would also be pleased. Who knows, or the absence of the silliness/ inefficiencies may lower the appeal to the casuals/ uninitiated for such designs.  

[jarms48]

 

I mean there's a reason the Mark V design shows up so much - that's what the imperium has regressed to. The Mark V had a reputation for asphyxiating its own crew with carbon monoxide, by the way.

 

 

 

While the Russ uses the rhomboid design, it's far too tall. The Malcador is far better proportioned. In fact, the Malcador with the FW Russ turret actually looks pretty good.