7:21 This isn't exactly true. Both the French Char B1 and American M3 mounted 75mm guns in the hull, and both served well in the early parts of WW2, though this practice was phased-out once various countries worked out how to mount the larger, heavier guns into turrets.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Ergh, I knew about the US M3 although totally skipped my mind. Thanks for calling this out

@13thbee16

6 ай бұрын

The first mark of Churchill tanks also had a howitzer in the hull.

@davydatwood3158

6 ай бұрын

The M3 Lee/Grant was a fudge, used to get something into production quickly, while the Americans tried to figure out how to build a big enough turret to hold the 75mm. There's a reason it went away as soon as the M4 Sherman was available, and there's a reason Canada designed an entirely new tank to sit on the drive train rather than build Lees. The Char B1's 75mm wasn't intended as an anti-armour weapon. The B1 was built for trench warfare, and the 75mm was intended to destroy bunkers and fortifications, so it was deliberately placed low to the ground with no traverse - it was for engaging a fixed point that would itself be low to the ground. That said, it's entirely plausible to me that in 40K the need to engage fixed bunkers has returned. But it's worth remembering the B1 had a 47mm anti-tank weapon in the turret, whereas the Rogal Dorn seems to have the same weapon in both the turret and the hull. Which is a waste of space.

@bencejuhasz6459

6 ай бұрын

@@davydatwood3158 Regarding the M3 Medium Tanks, the US industry could have easily produced a tank with a 75 mm gun in the turret. Come on, naval vessels have larger turrets with larger cannons since the 1860s. The problem was one of the requirements by the US military(I think Army Ground Forces was responsible for this), which said that the new tank's turret must be cast instead of welded or riveted.

@richtheunstable3359

6 ай бұрын

Not sure if the char b1 served well? Took stupid numbers of rounds from panzer 3s while couldn't effectively engage back with the hull gun needing to be aimed by moving the tank no radio for the commander to communicate with driver. All the while the commander is also trying to load and firing the turret weapon. Would of worked if all they had to do was drive into fixed positions as a line breaker. The grant/lee managed it a lot better. Shame I have a soft spot for clunky tanks like the char

The hull stubbers would look 100 times better if they were placed where the arch-shaped headlights are IMO

I just hate how many weapons GW felt inclined to stick on it. It’s like 4-5 too many. So many GW kits are over designed today.

When lore for the dorn does eventually come out I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s another wacky Cawl invention since it’s kinda hard to retcon in a superior tank to the russ out of nowhere 😆 it would also explain the seemingly improved optics suite that allow the coax autocannon to hit on 3’s

GW has been bolting on extra weapons to vehicles as if crew require no internal space. This reminds me of the repulsor.

@LSgaming201

6 ай бұрын

Technically they don't. Most of the extra weapons are servitor crewed. The Leman Russ has a crew of 4.

@jordansmith4040

6 ай бұрын

@@LSgaming201 Servitors are regularly depicted as being at the very least a human head and torso. That requires at least a bit of space. No 40k tank is the correct scale for crew anyway, with rhinos supposedly carrying 10 armoured space marines plus crew, for example. Additional features like the awful fixed machine guns or hull weapons are a throwback to the interwar years, where nobody yet knew what a tank should be. The chimera is an afv built to WW1 standards. The Leman Russ is a medium tank/MBT built to WW1 standards. Yhese are proven design concepts, if a bit crude in manufacture. The Rogal Dorn, as an example, is now a more primitive interwar tank design built to interwar standards. The concept is worse, being less refined, but the execution is better, albeit still very flawed.

@LSgaming201

6 ай бұрын

@jordansmith4040 A servitor can technically be a brain in a jar with a nervous system. A servitor is a process not a specific thing. Either way a single servitor is enough to manage all the extra guns any vehicle. The other issues you point out are scale issues when Gdubs was producing more primitive models. A Rhino's actual size is significantly larger than its model would suggest.

@bocktordaytona5656

6 ай бұрын

The repulsor remembers me the typical toy tank you can find in a dollar store with a big sticker on the side that says: Súper tank Or something like that

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

@bocktordaytona5656 😁

The turret mounted stubbed is for anti-flying monsters such as Tyranid gargoyles or vespid stingwings.

@alltat

6 ай бұрын

It would also work against enemies using jet packs or similar, which is quite widespread in the setting (SM, CSM, orks, and eldar). Hover bikes too.

@nos2342

6 ай бұрын

@@alltat I imagine traditional AA would have difficulty targeting mansized jump/ flying troops.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Great point. Using the realism approach there wasn't right. As u say there are alot more man sized objects buzzing around the sky

Night vision is not lost in the 41st millennium however it's just rare and not worth giving to everyone. Most power armor like marines and sisters of battle have it standard in their helmets while the guard either gets it for the veterans, stormtroopers or just if the regiment is from a well-off world able to supply it for everyone. The Mechanicus probably gives it standard to their own forces and most tech-priests have it if they get eye augmentics. I do remember a book where imperial infiltrators are sneaking into a Tau location get caught and escape but left behind night vision goggles that the Tau thought where primitive compared to what they had as it was only green and not full color like theirs.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Great point, makes sense given the sheer scale of the Astra Militarum. I guess the 41st millennium really is grim dark for the individual guardsman!

The only thing i could think of the nipple weapons being used for, mainly the meltas is to remove obstacales that the tank could not just bust through or treverse over without damage; plus it could be used to make breach in a wall which supporting infantry could assault through

@alltat

6 ай бұрын

"Nipple" machine guns were a real thing during WW2, intended to provide suppressing fire while advancing. Every army soon realized that they were useless and removed them.

@cirno9349

6 ай бұрын

I hate to say this but those are historically accurate the m6 heavy what it’s based on had 30cals mounted there

The biggest difference is effectiveness of the main gun. The 120mm smoothbore m256 gun has an published range od 3500 meters. And that is with pinpoint accuracy. Now I know that is for table constraints, but in scale a abrams would be able to hit models down the block from where the game is played.

GW has never had a good sense of small arms, but the tanks are a bit better. Not realistic, but a bit better.

@tarektechmarine8209

6 ай бұрын

I think this was a very decent addition, except for the front stubbers. Very Kratos tank like feel which I also quite like.

Awesome Video. I think most players don't realize how ridiculous most vehicles are in 40k. But at least the Dorn is better than the Leman Russ, even if it is very short with a very high center of mass. Which makes it look like a toy.

the thing about the turret stubber is yeah, it'd be useless against modern aircraft, but in 40k warfare there's just so many winged critters which are both a genuine threat and also slow and unarmoured

@GuardsmanHanan

4 күн бұрын

Absolutely - I address this in a subsequent video about the Baneblade. As you say, there are way more 'small' ariel targets in 40k than today

Great stuff! This might be my favourite of the imperial armour.

The Rogal Dorn really reminds me of an ARL-44 that had a baby with a Tank Mark V. It's *almost* plausible to me, which is pretty good for 40K. Delete the "nipple guns" - what a great phrase - use the single battle-cannon and put the rotary cannon on the hull as an over-sized bow machinegun, and then the only thing that's a bit wrong is the sponsons. (Those are almost certainly a waste of mass and probably shot traps to boot.) But leave those off and you have a reasonable looking tank. The "modern medium tank with WW1 style wraparound tracks" is probably partly inspired by the Churchill, of course, but it *really* fits the ARL-44 as well. The pintle mount doesn't bother me - I can assume the model's limited elevation is a simplification, and the "real" tank would have decent anti-air capability; and on the 40K battlefield there's a lot of relatively soft, relatively slow flying things that a machinegun would be good for. (In a similar vein, it's been suggested that the omnipresence of drones on the 21st century battlefield might see a resurgence in air-defence machinguns.) One thing that recently occurred to me whilst watching a UK Tank Museum video is the bow machine gun is usually crewed by the radio operator, and disappears roughly around the time that radio sets reach the point where the tank commander can run them himself. Correlation is not causation, but I wonder how much those are actually connected? It's often described as a waste of crew and space to put a bow machinegun on a tank - but if you need that crew member and space *anyway* for the radio, you might as well give him a gun, right? And 40K seems like we're back to dedicated radio operators in vehicles. As for the double-guns on tanks - people compare these to battleship and cruisers a lot, but this overlooks a key point: warships run out of good spots to put guns much, much sooner than they run out of either the ability to haul all that mass or to store ammunition. Whereas a tank runs out of ammo storage very, very quickly, and doubling the mass of the weapon has a serious impact on mobility. Also, a ship with three guns in a turret has three gun *crews* in that turret, whilst a tank probably doesn't. So for a ship, multi-gun turrets make sense. For a tank - leaving aside small auto-loading weapons for anti-air work - having two guns in the turret is just dumb. All that said: the Rogal Dorn isn't perfect but is a tank I can believe someone made. Even the sponsons are on of those "well, it looked good on paper" ideas that's believable. I suspect that over time, as GW shifts to a more realistic-proportioned look in their figures, we'll see Leman Russes get withdrawn from the store and the Dorn become the "standard" IG tank.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Super thanks for the long comment, I enjoyed reading that. Good point on the radio man and drop off of Hull MGs as result. I read that, too. The woerd thing with the Dorn is the genuine lack of supporting lore. It isn't mentioned anywhere I've read even it more recent novels realised by GW

10:45 Having an oversized coaxial weapon makes sense when you consider you're not just fighting humans in this. Same for the sponsons.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Great point that someone else also made. As someone else mentioned, the Ukraine war has seen the emergence of drones as a mass weapon so a pintel mounted MG could be helpful even today

@widowpeak6142

6 ай бұрын

@@GuardsmanHanan I feel like a pintle mounted machine gun is something you should never get rid of. It provides so much utility.

Gotta love the nipple guns that GW is throwing into things willy nilly these days

Enjoyed the analysis

1:26 This is the 'larger, differently proportioned tank' picture I have mentioned before.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Absolutely. In fact the illustration of the Rogal Dorn from the 9e codex has the proportions completely different to the model. The illustration looks 'realistic' with the commander on top looking very small compared to the tank. IRL it would probably be a ginormous vehicle, can't imagine how big a Baneblade would be...

@user-xb1wh5mt4l

6 ай бұрын

@@GuardsmanHanan Proportions aside, it's close to 1,5x the model scale, thus a Baneblade can be expected to be similarly enlarged. Quite amusingly, a similar upscale and change if proportions would solve the 'lascannon digging into the ground' and internal space problems on the Leman Russ, as well as the Chimera's carrying capacity.

The M1's co-ax is an M240, not a .50. The second hatch on most tanks that have 3 man turrets is for the loader, not the gunner. No clue how many guys they have stuffed into the Dorn's turret though. The French AMX-30 is an example of a tank with a coaxial autocannon. The French seem to prefer slightly heavier co-ax guns, with the Leclerc having a .50. The logic of everyone else is that if it's too tough for a normal MG, that's what the cannon is for. Anyway, nitpicks and trivia aside, good video.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for these details, they are honestly interesting to hear. Will capture some of this for the next video on the Baneblade. As I've discovered, Hull mounted cannons were more common than I thought

Great video thanks for sharing 🫡👍🍻

Thanks

It may not be realistic, but it kicks like a mule on the tabletop!

g'day mayte!!! 🍺🍺

One thing that occurs to me is the ease of mobility kill with the exposed wraparound tracks. Awesome to see videos tackling this.

@GuardsmanHanan

6 ай бұрын

Good point on the mobility kill

How realistic is it? Well it is just a m6 heavy at 2 times the size. Also the the belly gun makes some sense as it allows you have a smaller turret on top for for anti armor anti infantry and a heavier gun for fortifications as seen on the b1 bis or m3 lee but it’s smaller then the main gun while weakening the frontal armor. Two weird points with the hull the front is very boxy it should be more rounded for better ballistic protection and the hull is just too short the back engine deck needs to be long to fit a larger engine to push it along and give better ground pressure and trench clearance. The double barrel main cannon is horrible the guns are locked together so no independent traverse like a battle ship gun while halfing the effective ammo. I didn’t like the tank till I found out what it’s supposed to be but even then there are some strange liberties they take in the design

Obligatory Comment 🫡

Grant and Lee? Not practical. In use during ww2.

Realistic? HAHAHAHA

@tarektechmarine8209

6 ай бұрын

You're no fun, figuring out how flyin bricks fly is half the fun, the other half is how they obliterate eldar fighters.

@sebbonxxsebbon6824

6 ай бұрын

How about this for no fun, I can buy an OUTSTANDING tank model of a real tank from Tamiya or other top companies for less then a GW product!@@tarektechmarine8209