Why different turrets for razor backs and predators?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Especially since both can take twin lascannons.

wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to build razorbacks with the same turret as the predator, or vice versa?

[Kallas]

While it's not quite official (few official sources go into the detail necessary) the Rites of Battle sourcebook for the Deathwatch RPG has the Razorback turret carrying less ammunition overall. The Predator's turret is more heavily armoured and the hull is outfitted to carry more weapons and targeting systems (ie, the sponsons) and is more resilient (heavier front armour, which we used to see in previous editions, and additional structural support [in the DW RPG this was more vehicle HP, basically] which tracks with the Predator's +1W).

 

I'd assume that Predators are much more thorough overhauls of a Rhino chassis, whereas Razorback modifications are likely much easier and quicker to acheive but overall much less effective (in the actual in-universe minutae) effective as a main battle tank. It might be possible for a Razorback modification to happen rapidly enough between two deployments. 

 

Basically, the Razorback is an IFV, whereas the Predator is meant to be a fast MBT (or maybe more a tank destroyer to the Land Raider's MBT), so they fulfill different roles - but on the tabletop they fulfill almost exactly the same role, which is more of a problem with scale than anything. There isn't enough granularity between the two to properly display the differences: the Chaos Predator is a good example of a tabletop buff that could display the differences, as the T8 and improved Twin Lascannon make it a more effective MBT whereas a Razorback would keep similar firepower and gain transport capacity at the cost of resilience. Maybe with the 10E Marine book we'll see this change happen to distinguish the two.

[MadGreek]

It's been awhile since I looked - but Razorbacks also have a troop carrying capacity (albeit reduced from a Rhino), Predators do not.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, MadGreek said:

It's been awhile since I looked - but Razorbacks also have a troop carrying capacity (albeit reduced from a Rhino), Predators do not.

This has nothing to do with the turret.

in fact if anything the small razorback turret would require ammo to be stored inside the hull, whereas the predator’s turret would be capable of carrying ammo, freeing up hull space for transport capacity.(granted this isn’t taking into account the sponsons)

[MadGreek]

The classic Razor Back had a Marine manning the weapon on the gun. THAT was the primary reason (it seems) for the difference in the turrets, and it just carried through when they removed the gunner. Also, i suppose the ammo for the razor back turret is stored where the 4 Marines used to ride (capacity 6 instead of 10).

[MadGreek]

Actually, I see I was not very responsive to the original question. In my mind, it is because a Razorback is a Rhino with a (small) turret added to provide some covering fire during the assault, prior to dis-embarkation. A Predator is a purpose built tank. Just because they are based on the same chassis doesn't mean they are the same.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 hours ago, MadGreek said:

The classic Razor Back had a Marine manning the weapon on the gun. THAT was the primary reason (it seems) for the difference in the turrets, and it just carried through when they removed the gunner. Also, i suppose the ammo for the razor back turret is stored where the 4 Marines used to ride (capacity 6 instead of 10).

But with a larger turret for ammo storage you could maintain that 10 man transport capacity 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

11 hours ago, MadGreek said:

Actually, I see I was not very responsive to the original question. In my mind, it is because a Razorback is a Rhino with a (small) turret added to provide some covering fire during the assault, prior to dis-embarkation. A Predator is a purpose built tank. Just because they are based on the same chassis doesn't mean they are the same.

But slapping a larger turret and sponsons on a transport’s hull doesn’t make it a purpose built tank.

that’s one of the problems the US army initially had with the stryker MGS. It was a transport’s hull with a 100(?)mm gun turret.

 

the predator’s 1 extra wound doesn’t scream heavily modified to be an MBT, to me it’s more of a heavy gun truck.

 

like i said just seems weird to have two separate turrets especially since each have identical or nearly identical weapon options for one loadout.

[Bryan Blaire]

This one is easy - there’s a manufacturing reason and so they can sell you multiple units.  GW can make a bunch of base Rhino sprues and re-use those in multiple vehicles, and then just produce a single new sprue for the upgrade stuff, like Razorbacks or Predators.

 

People have to stop approaching these kinds of things as if there’s logical in-universe reasons for it - model decisions are made based on real-world manufacturing and money, not for in-universe logic.

[Evil Eye]

The Predator was a lot more survivable compared to the Razorback in the days of armour value, for what that's worth.

 

As for the turret difference, the Predator has a "full" manned turret, presumably with inner turret basket and far more ammo. The Razorback has a simple servo-turret, possibly remote operated, which whilst less reliable/accurate is also much less of a space hog. The turret on the Razorback is a secondary support weapon for the benefit of the squad inside, whilst the turret of the Predator is its main weapon.

[Kallas]

5 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

People have to stop approaching these kinds of things as if there’s logical in-universe reasons for it - model decisions are made based on real-world manufacturing and money, not for in-universe logic.

Yes, this is true. I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of what would the in-universe justification be.

[Bryan Blaire]

4 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Yes, this is true. I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of what would the in-universe justification be.

Yeah - but at some point if that in-universe logic/justification doesn’t make much sense, we pretty much have to accept that - it may not always make sense.  Even GW’s in-universe statements for justifications aren’t always that satisfying.

[lansalt]

Remember that the Razorback wasn't created until M36 and it's still inferior to a Predator in pure vehicle combat capabilities. Having a manned turret with more crewmembers and extra ammo cannot be underestimated. Just look at real life tank evolution in early WW2.

For all the Great Crusade, the Heresy, and beyond, space marines were content with keeping the roles of Predators and Rhinos separate. But it makes some sense that the Razorback appeared as better way to transport and provide fire support to the lone squads on a mission that are much common in 40k.

A better in-universe question would be why SM Predators have never used the cannon of the Sororitas version, or the multimelta/plasma cannon sponsons of Leman Russes.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, lansalt said:

Remember that the Razorback wasn't created until M36 and it's still inferior to a Predator in pure vehicle combat capabilities. Having a manned turret with more crewmembers and extra ammo cannot be underestimated. Just look at real life tank evolution in early WW2.

For all the Great Crusade, the Heresy, and beyond, space marines were content with keeping the roles of Predators and Rhinos separate. But it makes some sense that the Razorback appeared as better way to transport and provide fire support to the lone squads on a mission that are much common in 40k.

A better in-universe question would be why SM Predators have never used the cannon of the Sororitas version, or the multimelta/plasma cannon sponsons of Leman Russes.

The best question is why did the razorback lose it’s las/plas loadout? 
I custom built a turret came back to the game and it’s no longer viable.

[lansalt]

Changes in the game doesn't mean changes in the lore. The lasplas Razorback is still out there in the galaxy, just not common or the focus of the rules (You can still use it with Legends if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Jolemai]

6 minutes ago, lansalt said:

Changes in the game doesn't mean changes in the lore. The lasplas Razorback is still out there in the galaxy, just not common or the focus of the rules (You can still use it with Legends if I'm not mistaken).

 

 

Sadly it missed out this edition in what I assume was an oversight - so I run mine as a Lasback.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

When you stick some kind of turret -- whether manned like the Predator or remote weapon station (RWS) like the Razorback -- onto a vehicle, you are not just appending something to the top; there are parts of it that stick down into the hull that changes the amount and arrangement of the vehicle's crew compartment.

 

The Rhino --> Razorback conversion involves fewer structural changes to the vehicle.  No additional armor is added.  The split-door roof access is replaced with a solid armor sheet containing the remote weapon station and its associated targeting systems and horizontal/vertical drives (the mechanisms that elevate/depress/turn the turret).  A portion of the RWS will extend into the crew compartment, containing ready-use ammo stowage (on the model, note the power cables/shell feeds that lead down into the hull) as well as part of the horizontal drive.  Along the roof and/or walls of the crew compartment there will also be power cables that run from the powerpack to the horizontal & vertical drives, more cabling that runs from the RWS controls (ideally in the fighting compartment at the front of the vehicle, presumably controlled by the Tank Commander sitting next to the Driver) back to the RWS, and additional ammunition stowage to replace spent ammunition magazines loaded into the RWS' ready-stowage.  All the extra cabling, controls, ammo stowage, and the horizontal drive are what take up the extra space within the crew compartment that reduces the carrying capacity from ten to six.

 

Now, converting a Rhino to a Predator is much more time- and space- and resource-intensive task.  First, the Predator is up-armored.  This can be seen previous to 8th Edition by the Predator having an extra point of armor over the Rhino (Front AV 12 to Front AV 11) and in the current edition by having an additional wound (though I would add that the loyalist Predator is likely to receive the same Toughness boost from 7 to 8 that the Chaos Predator received in the last CSM codex, which also represents additional armor).  Secondly, the entire roof plate is replaced, eliminating the opening that used to be a split-door hatch entirely with a reinforced armored roof capable of holding the increased weight of the Predator's turret (which by virtue of its sheer size is going to weigh more than the Razorback's RWS).  Like the RWS, a tank turret extends down into the hull from the roof with a structure called a turret basket; this is a reinforced platform connected to the turret (as opposed to being connected to the roof) that rotates as the turret rotates and provides a platform upon which the Gunner and TC can stand.  The horizontal drive is going to be bigger and require more power than what an RWS requires because it's moving so much more mass, and turrets usually contain a hand-cranked drive as well in case of a jam or power failure.  The basket is what takes up most of the space in what used to be the Rhino's crew compartment; the rest is going to be taken up by extra ammo stowage, and additional space will be dedicated to the additional control feeds & power cabling that turns to the sponson mounts.  All this extra gear eliminates any space that could viably be used to carry additional infantry, as well as blocking any access to the rear ramp.  Without the rear ramp or the side doors (themselves inaccessible due to the sponson mounts) you don't have anywhere for infantry to disembark from in any case, as it would take forever and a day to get even six men out of the two roof hatches that a Predator is generally depicted as having (one for the Driver above his station, and one for the Gunner & TC in the turret roof).

 

Now, with all that internal layout gobblygook out of the way, on to the main question: can a Predator mount just a Razorback RWS instead of a turret?  The short and fast answer is "Yes," though a wise man once said "Nothing before the word 'but' in a sentence matters."

 

So, yes, but there are huge benefits to mounting a manned turret over an RWS.  First, the weapon itself is more vulnerable in an RWS than in an enclosed turret.  Just look at the model and you'll see that the armored cowling around the RWS protects from shots from the side and top, but front and back are totally exposed to enemy fire -- to include the ammo feeds.  A turret meanwhile fully encloses your primary weapon system, making it harder to disarm the vehicle.  Secondly, RWS being remote by definition means that if it is damaged or suffers a malfunction that cannot be expediently fixed, it's out of action until you can get it back to a depot.  The control line is damaged?  The horizontal or vertical drive is damaged?  A solid-ammo weapon jams?  There's not really much you can do.  But all of these issues can be fixed or worked around by a protected crew inside a turret.  A jam is fixed by the Space Marine literally just opening the breach and yanking out the deformed casing.  If the drives are down there are the aforementioned manual controls, etc.

 

The only major benefit to an RWS compared to a turret on the Predator is crew safety -- the Gunner and TC are physically lower down in the hull and protected by more internal components than if they were up in the turret.

[lansalt]

1 minute ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

A portion of the RWS will extend into the crew compartment, containing ready-use ammo stowage (on the model, note the power cables/shell feeds that lead down into the hull)

Curiously, the FW razorback turrets didn't have ammo chutes/power lines going into the hull. Even the FW twin assault cannon turret only has a couple of ammo boxes in the outside. This possibly was in-universe a cheaper/temporal way to turn Rhinos into Razorbacks, with a crew member having to reload the turret manually using the smaller top hatch.

[Evil Eye]

It's also worth mentioning the old Mk1 Razorback, which did have a manned turret, but it was an open one. Not very safe!

Mmmmm. Bright second edition-y goodness.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Jolemai said:

 

Sadly it missed out this edition in what I assume was an oversight - so I run mine as a Lasback.

It hasn’t been an out of the kit option for a while so I figured it hasn’t been a rules option for a while as well

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

When you stick some kind of turret -- whether manned like the Predator or remote weapon station (RWS) like the Razorback -- onto a vehicle, you are not just appending something to the top; there are parts of it that stick down into the hull that changes the amount and arrangement of the vehicle's crew compartment.

 

The Rhino --> Razorback conversion involves fewer structural changes to the vehicle.  No additional armor is added.  The split-door roof access is replaced with a solid armor sheet containing the remote weapon station and its associated targeting systems and horizontal/vertical drives (the mechanisms that elevate/depress/turn the turret).  A portion of the RWS will extend into the crew compartment, containing ready-use ammo stowage (on the model, note the power cables/shell feeds that lead down into the hull) as well as part of the horizontal drive.  Along the roof and/or walls of the crew compartment there will also be power cables that run from the powerpack to the horizontal & vertical drives, more cabling that runs from the RWS controls (ideally in the fighting compartment at the front of the vehicle, presumably controlled by the Tank Commander sitting next to the Driver) back to the RWS, and additional ammunition stowage to replace spent ammunition magazines loaded into the RWS' ready-stowage.  All the extra cabling, controls, ammo stowage, and the horizontal drive are what take up the extra space within the crew compartment that reduces the carrying capacity from ten to six.

 

Now, converting a Rhino to a Predator is much more time- and space- and resource-intensive task.  First, the Predator is up-armored.  This can be seen previous to 8th Edition by the Predator having an extra point of armor over the Rhino (Front AV 12 to Front AV 11) and in the current edition by having an additional wound (though I would add that the loyalist Predator is likely to receive the same Toughness boost from 7 to 8 that the Chaos Predator received in the last CSM codex, which also represents additional armor).  Secondly, the entire roof plate is replaced, eliminating the opening that used to be a split-door hatch entirely with a reinforced armored roof capable of holding the increased weight of the Predator's turret (which by virtue of its sheer size is going to weigh more than the Razorback's RWS).  Like the RWS, a tank turret extends down into the hull from the roof with a structure called a turret basket; this is a reinforced platform connected to the turret (as opposed to being connected to the roof) that rotates as the turret rotates and provides a platform upon which the Gunner and TC can stand.  The horizontal drive is going to be bigger and require more power than what an RWS requires because it's moving so much more mass, and turrets usually contain a hand-cranked drive as well in case of a jam or power failure.  The basket is what takes up most of the space in what used to be the Rhino's crew compartment; the rest is going to be taken up by extra ammo stowage, and additional space will be dedicated to the additional control feeds & power cabling that turns to the sponson mounts.  All this extra gear eliminates any space that could viably be used to carry additional infantry, as well as blocking any access to the rear ramp.  Without the rear ramp or the side doors (themselves inaccessible due to the sponson mounts) you don't have anywhere for infantry to disembark from in any case, as it would take forever and a day to get even six men out of the two roof hatches that a Predator is generally depicted as having (one for the Driver above his station, and one for the Gunner & TC in the turret roof).

 

Now, with all that internal layout gobblygook out of the way, on to the main question: can a Predator mount just a Razorback RWS instead of a turret?  The short and fast answer is "Yes," though a wise man once said "Nothing before the word 'but' in a sentence matters."

 

So, yes, but there are huge benefits to mounting a manned turret over an RWS.  First, the weapon itself is more vulnerable in an RWS than in an enclosed turret.  Just look at the model and you'll see that the armored cowling around the RWS protects from shots from the side and top, but front and back are totally exposed to enemy fire -- to include the ammo feeds.  A turret meanwhile fully encloses your primary weapon system, making it harder to disarm the vehicle.  Secondly, RWS being remote by definition means that if it is damaged or suffers a malfunction that cannot be expediently fixed, it's out of action until you can get it back to a depot.  The control line is damaged?  The horizontal or vertical drive is damaged?  A solid-ammo weapon jams?  There's not really much you can do.  But all of these issues can be fixed or worked around by a protected crew inside a turret.  A jam is fixed by the Space Marine literally just opening the breach and yanking out the deformed casing.  If the drives are down there are the aforementioned manual controls, etc.

 

The only major benefit to an RWS compared to a turret on the Predator is crew safety -- the Gunner and TC are physically lower down in the hull and protected by more internal components than if they were up in the turret.

Adding a turret does not mean there’s something going down into the hull of the vehicle.

the stryker dragoon is a good example. Remote controlled turret, with nothing impeding the transport capability 

23 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

It's also worth mentioning the old Mk1 Razorback, which did have a manned turret, but it was an open one. Not very safe!

Mmmmm. Bright second edition-y goodness.

This the one I always wanted but then the automated turret one came out before i could :’(

[MadGreek]

But adding a turret with a stand for the tank commander to use does add something to the inside. Also the  Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System added a turret, like the Predator did, and is no longer an infantry transport, like the predator is not. Your comparison would.  It also seems that the Stryker variant that carries the mortar systems also doesn't transport troops. The (base) Stryker is a Rhino (being very liberal with the comparisons here.) The M1128 is the Predator. I think a better line of inquiry on your part, if using the Stryker as your real world base line comparison, is why the razor back loses transport capability by adding a simple remote controlled turret.  The old school one needed room for the gunner, the new one doesn't.

 

 

[Bryan Blaire]

The Razorback turret does clearly have portions of it that protrude into the inside, either power cabling that must connect to something (I believe this was supposed to be additional energy production capacity beyond what a Rhino alone produces), or ammo feed belts, which would be fed by hoppers inside.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

31 minutes ago, MadGreek said:

But adding a turret with a stand for the tank commander to use does add something to the inside. Also the  Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System added a turret, like the Predator did, and is no longer an infantry transport, like the predator is not. Your comparison would.  It also seems that the Stryker variant that carries the mortar systems also doesn't transport troops. The (base) Stryker is a Rhino (being very liberal with the comparisons here.) The M1128 is the Predator. I think a better line of inquiry on your part, if using the Stryker as your real world base line comparison, is why the razor back loses transport capability by adding a simple remote controlled turret.  The old school one needed room for the gunner, the new one doesn't.

 

 

The predator turret would explain the decreased transport capacity.

 

but is the predator a tank or not? The Stryker assault gun is not a tank, or even a tank destroyer, and loses all transport capacity to store those 100mm rounds, whereas the predator’s lascannons are fed by batteries, and the autocannon by a belt from a box that could likely hold all the ammo one could expect to need in battle.

 

the razorback has no reason for losing any amount of transport capacity 

[BrainFireBob]

This is the Imperium of Man!

 

In universe?

 

Someone asked for a way to convert a Rhino into a battle tank. STC provided the Predator- which used to have a small transport capacity in fluff references only, never in game. 

 

Someone else asked for an upgun to the rhino, or for the rhino to provide improved fire support. Hence, razorback.

 

Someone asked for a flamer addition to the rhino for Ork fighting, and got the Immolater.

 

These blueprints were prsserved and found later.

 

The first rule is GIGO. The second is, when dealing with a literalist AI, you get what you asked it for. 

 

So the Razorback turret is mounted to provide cover for the rear hatch. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by BrainFireBob