Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2008 23:28:11 GMT -5
A Salute to all members of the forum recently i HAVE seen the new rule book....every single page of it. And i came to a page describing the guns and weapons a tank can fire....when stationary, moving, etc. And it turns out that the battle cannon is still counted as an ordnace weapon, which means that it CAN still be fired when moving 6". (phew...relief to us all) The downturn is in the basilisk or other vehicles that have an ordnance barrage. The vehicles may NOT move in that turn if it wants to fire earthshaker ....the book states that it represents an 'all hands on deck' approach, meaning that all crew members are needed to man the battery, etc. defensive weapons are strength 4....srry guys, hull mount and sponson heavy bolters are a problem
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2008 0:03:59 GMT -5
basalisk should never move when about to fire the earthshaker. just doesnt make sense for artillery to move like that. then again the fact that the earthshaker is on a chimera chassis doesnt make any sense. no suspenion or anything
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 4, 2008 7:16:19 GMT -5
But when fired directly Ordnance Barrage Weapons are treated like normal Ordanance Weapons.
So SPG's can go tank hunting.
Space Puppy- Having no suspension on a gun platform is a bonus. You want the gun to be a stable as possible when firing and any suspension would move because of the recoil of the gun. Having no suspension is only a problem when you're moving (but thats more of a problem for the crew).
|
|
|
Post by telecustom on Jul 4, 2008 8:37:28 GMT -5
The crew is secondary. You can always fond more "Cannon Cockers".
|
|
|
Post by Mabus on Jul 4, 2008 14:38:08 GMT -5
Withought a suspension system the recoil on an Earthshaker cannon would knock it over!
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 4, 2008 15:52:09 GMT -5
Withought a suspension system the recoil on an Earthshaker cannon would knock it over! How? The Earthshaker cannon has limited traverse so in effect it'll always be firing forward. You need the gun platform to be as stable as possible to make it more accurate. The real world equivalent of the Basilisk would be the M-110 Howitzer which has a spade at the rear to try and keep the vehicle stable when it fires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2008 15:53:31 GMT -5
exactly or it would bury it in the ground.... imagine the recoil on such a gun. the chassis would be shaken, stirred, pretty much your dealing with a crew stunned ever turn.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 4, 2008 16:34:16 GMT -5
You want the recoil mechanizam of the gun to absord the recoil not the suspension. The spade on the M-110 is to keep the vehicle stable. Without it it'll bounce all over the place, it's nothing to do with stopping it from burying itself.
Most SGP's have a way of locking or stiffening the suspension when firing so that the vehicle doesnt move at all.
To make the gun accurate it needs to be fired from a stable platform. The gun will have it's own way of dealing with the recoil.
|
|
|
Post by knight (M.I.A) on Jul 4, 2008 20:45:58 GMT -5
Woz is completely right there. The suspension system is only for crew and actually contra-productive for SPA (Self-Propelled Artillery). The shaking the recoil would cause (the recoil that wasn't absorbed by the recoil dampeners) would make the tank shake a lot. Often SPAs have stabilasators the can use as well (like Woz described them or similiar to that). Without them multishot would be impossible (the German PzH 2000 can fire up to 6 shots that hit the ground simultaneous). Without stabilisations and shaking suspension accuracy would go down to 0 after the first shot.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 5, 2008 17:24:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mabus on Jul 7, 2008 3:44:52 GMT -5
*Puts dunce hat on* I really think this has gone so far off topic we won't be able to get it back on track
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 7, 2008 4:18:56 GMT -5
Nonetheless, you're own arguments have just pointed out that the 'Lisk being able to move and fire is downright stupid.
Will all who wish to argue with me please go and find some protective clothing?
|
|
|
Post by lordcastellenjon on Jul 7, 2008 4:30:46 GMT -5
*puts on a cup over crotch area* any spa with suspension is a bad thing any way you want the shock to go threw the hull so a tank hull would be the best choice and the chimera chasie is a natural choices as it is light and fast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2008 8:10:23 GMT -5
this thread has been officially tainted
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Jul 7, 2008 9:54:27 GMT -5
Nonetheless, you're own arguments have just pointed out that the 'Lisk being able to move and fire is downright stupid. Will all who wish to argue with me please go and find some protective clothing? Don's MOPP gear. (MOPP gear for anyone who doesn't know is protective military gear for Chemical warfare). OK, First off I am not going to get into a reality versus fantasy aspect, but may refer to existing tanks as examples simply because they are there and [glow=red,2,300]WORK[/glow]now. A vehicle that has an ordinance weapon does not need to be limited by the movement of a vehicle. Gun crews in the GW world work independently of the vehicle itself. If you look at a Leman Russ (LR) of any variant you see the sponson and other guns are separate from the drivers compartment. Most tanks have for crew the following Tank commander Driver Mechanic Loader Gunner That is five people in a NON sponson tank with only a turret fired weapon. Pintle mounted weapons are usually triggered off the Driver, or the Tank Commanders station. On a Sponson equipped tank you would add a gunner and loader for that weapon. So the generic LR with sponsons would have 10 crew (counting the hull mounted weapon, removing the mechanic since that is the tech-priest job). Since the driver is in control of the tank's mobility he has nothing to do with what is being fired. The tank is just a mobile platform to move the vehicle from one location to another. The main turret guns would have stabilizers and targeting that allow the barrel to remain level and on target. One could argue that the extra die of drift is due to the speed of movement that the tank is traveling. In light of the Bassie being able to move and fire an ordinance weapon I see no problem with why this could not be done. The tank itself is not being anchored and has been pointed out that the suspension of the tank has no effect on if it is able to fire. Now, if GW wants to add that the weapon is being upgraded to a barrage weapon (Which, would make me one happy camper) and add rules that say the weapon can't move it is their game and I will abide by them, but current codex allows for the tank to move and fire since it is only classified as a ordinance weapon and not the ordinance barrage weapon. From what I have read in the 5th you can still fire an ordinance weapon if you have limited movement. The question will be raised though if they spout off that the it takes the full crew to fire the weapon on what happens to the gun if you take out the crew. Bringing us back full circle to 2nd Ed when you could actually take out a gun crew. Gun crew on the Bassie were removed in 4th from 3rd since people would concentrate on the removal of the Armor 5 of the crew versus the armor of the vehicle. This only would make good tactical sense to begin with. Why waste the shot at the vehicle when the meaty crew can't absorb the damage.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 7, 2008 10:45:38 GMT -5
Nonetheless, you're own arguments have just pointed out that the 'Lisk being able to move and fire is downright stupid. Why? We're talking about a universe with warp travel and skyscraper sized walking machines, why can't they have invented something that also a large calibre gun to be fired on the move. During WWII the germans often used SPG's as tanks, the only real problem is that the SPG has to stop when it fires. Why can't a bassie move 6", stop then fire (like in real life). Who says the driver doesn't have a little button that locks the suspension so that it becomes a stable weapons platform.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 7, 2008 10:57:02 GMT -5
Mobile artillery do not move and fire, and neither do fixed-position tank hunter SPGs. The only such vehicles designed to move and fire were the StuG series assault guns, none of which mounted an artillery piece the size of a Basilisk, which would most likely be a 150mm/203mm equivalent howitzer. Very few tanks can move and fire accurately- HOWEVER, the move-and-fire rules for games Workshop most likely represent the tank coming to rest and then firing off a shot rapidly at it's target. Which is acceptable in a MBT, but not in a self propelled heavy howitser.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 7, 2008 12:01:25 GMT -5
Maybe the rules allow the fact that sometimes vehicles aren't always used to just do the jobs they were intended to do. The StuGs were designed as assault guns but were used as tanks because the German army lacked tanks. Who's to say that an IG commander whos had all his LR's knocked out wouldn't use his Bassie to go tank hunting. 150mm Howitzer on a PzIII hull. On paper it's not a good idea but sometimes desperate action is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 7, 2008 12:31:02 GMT -5
Thanks for the image Woz. Another one for the history file. (can you remember if it had an actual name, or is it just a Western Desert modification)
But my point is that tank hunters also do not move and fire. They sit back and take potshots at enemy units at a distance. They simply cannot traverse their guns fast enough to move and fire effectively. And if they try to fire when actually moving (as opposed to stopping and then firing) they miss. Hell, if you tried to fire a 150mm howitzer while moving you'd probably rip the superstructure off.
Still, I will concede the argument to you. Not so much due to being convinced, but because I got a new pic.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 7, 2008 13:24:39 GMT -5
I agree, SPG's can only be effective tank killers when used in ambush and are next to useless when on the move but some were used as normal tanks and maybe GW are taking this into account. Who knows maybe the new IG codex will put a stop to this.
Anyway the pic.
Not much is known abot this other then it's a one off built in theatre (in Afrika). Rommel could never get enough tanks, so he wouldn't waste them by converting them to SPG's. So the chances are that this one had it's turret removed (because of damage) and they just stuck the howitzer on it.
From what I've read there are only 5 photos of this SPG, 4 of them are in a private collection.
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Jul 8, 2008 10:05:33 GMT -5
Very few tanks can move and fire accurately- HOWEVER, the move-and-fire rules for games Workshop most likely represent the tank coming to rest and then firing off a shot rapidly at it's target. Have a slight beef with this. Since the advent of the tank. Gunners have fired with accuracy the main weapon while on the move. Since the advent of gyroscopic stabilizers this accuracy has increased. The M1Abrams is operationally designed to fire as it is moving with accuracy as are many of the current generation tanks. Considering how basic a principle of a gyroscope is one would be hard pressed to say such technologies do not exist in tanks such as the LR. Also, with the advent of new munitions such as the Excalibur Artillery shells which are fire and forget precision guided ARTILLERY shells. It is only a matter of time before someone has the bright idea of driving their howitzer and firing it at the same time. Through out history you see Artillery moved and dropped so that it can fire a round. It is not a difficult concept to wrap ones head around that you can move and fire ordinance. Even with the game it allows for ordinance to fire if the vehicle moves. The effect is that you roll an extra die for scatter (which if you had the Excalibur, or similar weapon you wouldn't even need to worry about scatter at all). In 4th this was a redundant as if you fired with indirect you always rolled a second die anyhow. Not that it made much of a difference to roll out and fire at something you had complete LOS and used two dice as well. Nice changes in 5th is that Ordinance is not going to be effected by cover saves as in prior editions. Someone finally figured out that a high trajectory weapon will not be passing through the terrain feature. Would be nice to have such munition upgrades for the Bassie in our codex.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 8, 2008 11:16:58 GMT -5
Ah, staff sergeant.... I hope you'll forgive me for saying this, but your belief in technology concerns me slightly. I will concede to you, that gyroscopic sights are standard technology. However, the fact of the matter is that gyroscopes alone do not take into account the shifts in topography etc to actually have any accuracy in hitting their target. Most tanks still even today stop and fire their weapons.
And as for your artillery points.... well, I hope you'll forgive me for disputing these.
Firstly, a concept such as precsion artillery is rather ridiculous, when even 'smart' weapons such as cruise missiles often miss their intended targets (see: downtown Bagdahd, 1990, 2003). Secondly, it represents such a grotesque waste of money for a weapon whose primary role is the destruction and disrutption of military targets.
Secondly, while I concede that artillery can move, stop and fire in a manner similar to an tank, doing so results in loss of ranges and poorer shooting results than immobile artillery. Secondly, the time required to set up the artillery pieces is considerably longer than that of a tank stopping and firing off a single shot, which is what the movement and firing rules for tanks represent.
Thirdly, I will concede your point on artillery damage should the shell land directly within a barricade or trench. If, however, it lands outside of it then the infantry will still be shielded from the blast by their trenches/barriacades/trees/walls.
Fourthly: Hell yes, I want incendiary, (re-roll all failed to wound rolls) High-explosive (smaller blast template, but +1S and AP), Shrapnel ( larger template, -1 S and AP), Smoke (like a blind barrage, but in limited scale, D3 turns), and some others
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 12:43:18 GMT -5
Ah, the first tank to be able to fire -reliably and accurately- on the move is the Abrams. Also, you have to remember the context of the WH40k Universe. Sure, Excaliber Arty shells are awesome, but they may be too complex to manufacture or too expensive. The same money and time may be put forth into more conventional munitions. instead of one highly accurate shell, they produce 50 conventional shells. Accuracy by volume. Who cares about bystanders in 40k? If civies stand on the battlefield, that means they are cultists... Also the imperium has problems coping with machine spirits and any innanimate object that seems to think for itself. Its the dark age of man. They used to have the tech and understanding, but now superstition keeps them away from the tech.
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Jul 9, 2008 9:23:59 GMT -5
Rolling Thunder, Not to burst your bubble or to steal your thunder so to speak you should really do a little search on the Excalibur before dismissing it. The idea of using such a shell is based on what insurgents are now doing. Hiding in between buildings (Such as a school, or hospital and an apartment) to shield their position. Hence the reason that the artillery shell had to be so accurate. Currently, the accuracy is within a few meters of the target. Also, having seen these shells fired and watching the trajectory they have a much steeper decline then the gentle arc of a normal shell.
Grenadier, You seem to have a little bit of your fluff slightly off. It is not the dark age of man. Secondly, the Imperium does not have problems coping with machine spirits, which is in all intense and purposes just an AI. The Imperium has lost a lot of tech, but that is why the Adeptus Mechanicus is always on the search for it. While the understanding may be lost on the user, those that repair them have that knowledge and guard it like a religion in and of itself. Not unlike much of what is seen today (I know how to operate, clean and fire a weapon, but I do not have the knowledge on how to repair a firearm. That is what a Gunsmith has to do). The common people of the hive live day to day just like anyone else. Taking for granted that when the light switch is in the on position the lights go on. Albeit those in the lower levels are akin to living in the worst slums of the world and have to fight to survive. Most of what we see in the game deal with only two of the extremes of the game. That of the soldier on the field and read about those that live in the lower hives. It is much more interesting to read about survival than it is to hear about how someone of the middle class lived out their middle class life. Oh the drudgery of it all. How boring it is to enter a room and turn on a light by which to watch a Bloodbowl championship game while drinking a Bloodweiser or Kriegenbrau or even popping the top on a Talleran Ale.
The battle fields normally take place far from the center of population and the only civies there will be the cultist, the scavangers, and looters. That which make the story exciting, because they have a risk that is being taken and the spectacular tale that is written. All in all the fluff is extraordinary events taking place on ordinary people who are just trying to survive extraordinary situations.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 9, 2008 10:05:55 GMT -5
Indeed, however the point remains that if the insuregents are utilising civilians as cover, then under no circumstances should ANY form of long-ranged HE fire be used. Send in the infantry to clean them out.
And grenadier- The Abrams still cannot move and accurately fire under battlefield conditions.
|
|