Battle of the Questionable Tanks (40K vs SW)

[NecronLord]

In the Red Corner, the TIE Century.



Schematic

In the Blue Corner, the Imperial Guard Leman Russ:



Schematic

These two vehicles are tasked with destroying one another by any means necessary, and start on opposite ends of a Starport, the Century Tank located near the CMD area, and the Russ located near the fuel tanks on the right, assume they're about one mile apart; which would win and why?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Minor nitpick: I tihnk it's meant to be the TIE Sentry, not Century, but could be wrong.

As it is, I am leaning towards the Leman Russ, since it isn't really a tank so much as a self-propelled gun that is pretty damn powerful and has heavy armour, whilst the TIE is fragile, (I tihnk) unarmoured and limited to line-of-sight weapons that are mounted low on the hull.

[NecronLord]

Definately Century

[Sidewinder]

The Leman Russ' weapons are mounted so they can actually hit something NOT directly in front of it; said weapons can traverse. It also mounts a variety of weapons to engage different targets, be they infantry (fragile but agile, requiring rapid-fire weapons) or enemy armor (slow but sturdy, requiring BIG GUNS to penetrate its defenses).

The TIE crawler only has rapid-fire weapons with limited ability to penetrate enemy armor- I doubt it'll pierce an AT-AT's armor, unless the TIE crawler gets EXTREMELY lucky. Only the retractable turret can traverse, and so what? That weapon is mounted on the BOTTOM of the vehicle, whose own tracks will block the line-of-fire to the sides, meaning it's utterly FUCKED if the Leman Russ manages to flank it.

Before anyone wanks 'Star Wars' technology, remember that 'Warhammer 40,000' has no shortage of high-tech anti-armor weapons- look up the conversion beamer, lascannon, melta weapons, or the nightmarish weapons listed under Weapons (Adeptus Mechanicus).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Definately Century

Fair enough.

Sidewinder brings up a good point. What weapons does the Russ have beyond the Battle Cannon? Is it 3 heavy bolters or does it back a hull mounted lascannon? What about sponson weapons, since those could be multi-meltas or plasma cannons; either or which add significantly to the punch.

Though since the TIe is at best lightly armoured, even the heavy bolters could pose a credible threat to the thing. Heavy bolters can, in-game,glance vehicles of armour value 11 to death. And thats what I see the TIE as being, a light skirmishing vehicle.

[Sidewinder]

Definately Century

Fair enough.

Sidewinder brings up a good point. What weapons does the Russ have beyond the Battle Cannon? Is it 3 heavy bolters or does it back a hull mounted lascannon? What about sponson weapons, since those could be multi-meltas or plasma cannons; either or which add significantly to the punch.

Codex: Astra Militarum and the Lexicanum article Leman Russ battle tank list heavy bolters, heavy flamers, multi-meltas, and PLASMA CANNONS as options for the tank's sponson-mounted weapons. In addition, the heavy bolter, heavy flamer, and lascannon may be hull-mounted (not all at once, of course).

And don't forget the pintle-mounted heavy stubber or storm bolter, for air defense.

[NecronLord]

I would say that this one is Battle Cannon, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, and pintle heavy stubber, going by the picture.

[Batman]

Unless the TIE is massively more durable or maneuverable than the Leman Russ I'm giving it to the Russ, because the TIE tank is an incredibly stupid design. At least the Russ is a tank. The Century is a spacefighter with treads. There's a reason we don't just bolt treads on F-16s when we need more ground vehicles.

[Simon_Jester]

The TIE crawler only has rapid-fire weapons with limited ability to penetrate enemy armor- I doubt it'll pierce an AT-AT's armor, unless the TIE crawler gets EXTREMELY lucky.

To be fair, AT-ATs are massively armored and can withstand snowspeeder and fixed turret guns that are about as large as could ever be mounted on a realistic 'tank'-sized armored vehicle. So sure, TIE crawlers wouldn't have a prayer of hurting AT-ATs, but you could probably say the same of most other AFVs in the Star Wars setting. I doubt a Leman Russ could take one on either; you'd have to bring on the Imperial Baneblade tanks, or titans, superheavy vehicles which are built to the same scale as the AT-AT.

I still do agree with everyone else, though, in saying the Russ has this one. The TIE tank is just inherently a bad design concept for so many reasons.

[Joun_Lord]

I'm going to say the Lemon Rust is going to win this one. The TIE Tank/Crawler/Century whatever is just a terrible design no matter how you look at it and I'm not even sure if it can really be considered a tank (it lacks the large tank gun). Its at best like a tankette or a light armored fighting vehicle.

The Leman Russ is a bad design but is still a proper tank, its got that large tank gun even if its so big you would think it was meant to compensate for something (Leman Russ was supposed to be a dick, sounds like someone with inadequacy issues). It has turret, had more then one weapon, has a weapon designed for ground combat, is not a totally retarded design and has decent armor.

I think the match-up would be like a Abrams tank vs a Humvee but worse. Humvees can carry shit that could hurt or mission kill and Abrams (a TOW missle launcher and maybe a Mk19 with anti-armor ammo) while I doubt the TIE Crawler could even scratch the paint of the Leman Russ.

Probably a better match would be the LR vs a Feddie AAT or a Republic AT-TE. The AT-TE would be an interesting match-up I think considering the Leman Russ should have it beat in speed but the AT-TE might have heavier weapons plus infantry that can de-ass and possibly cause damage to the Russ.

I just really want to know who the fuck in universe and out thought the TIE Crawler was a good idea?

[Lord Revan]

I think the "design" of the TIE-tank out of universe went like this "we need another imperial ground vechicle that's not a Walker this game, I know lets put threads on a TIE-Fighter so we can do this quick", since IIRC it orginated from an RPG rulebook.

"In universe" who the hell knows for all we know it was meant was quick test bed for the treads but some Moff saw it and liked it and no one had the balls to say that design wasn't meant to a serious combat vechicle.

[Tribble]

IIRC wasn't the Tie-tank primarily an anti-infantry vehicle designed to replace aging AT-PTs? Would it even have any anti vehicle weapons?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

IIRC wasn't the Tie-tank primarily an anti-infantry vehicle designed to replace aging AT-PTs? Would it even have any anti vehicle weapons?

My understanding was the TIE Crawler was a stopgap created to provide the Imperial Army with armored vehicles quickly and cheaply. The main advantage of the design was that that TIE pilot washouts could be pressed into service to operate the vehicles.

[Purple]

The Leman Russ is a bad design but is still a proper tank, its got that large tank gun even if its so big you would think it was meant to compensate for something (Leman Russ was supposed to be a dick, sounds like someone with inadequacy issues). It has turret, had more then one weapon, has a weapon designed for ground combat, is not a totally retarded design and has decent armor.

I've said this before and I'll say it again I disagree. The LR is in fact a very good tank. It has a very adaptable engine, decent protection, very modular armament and many variants for different roles that can and should work together.
It's just got a bad rep due to several factors beyond the control of the original designers including but not limited to the fact that most of the variants they wanted to have on hand in large numbers in a combined arms formation can no longer be produced to match that demand. But you can't blame the LR for humanity being dumb about technology in the setting.

Still, even the base model makes perfect sense if we look at the kind of fights the tank is supposed to be fighting in the setting. The modern tank with its single high powered anti tank gun is designed for the context of modern warfare. That being warfare in which both sides have parity in terms of what they field and when the greatest ground threat to your troops is an enemy tank. The LR meanwhile has to fight under completely different circumstances. The greatest threat and most common target for IG forces are not going to be heavy armored point targets but large hordes of orks, chaos cultists, tyranids etc. And for that a big HE throwing gun and lots of machine guns make sense. A modern tank with it's 40 odd rounds of main gun and single machine gun would not last a hour under those conditions.

Bottom line is that when you compare the LR to a modern tank out of context you are missing the point. Might as well be comparing a race car to an agricultural tractor.

[Q99]

IIRC wasn't the Tie-tank primarily an anti-infantry vehicle designed to replace aging AT-PTs? Would it even have any anti vehicle weapons?

My understanding was the TIE Crawler was a stopgap created to provide the Imperial Army with armored vehicles quickly and cheaply. The main advantage of the design was that that TIE pilot washouts could be pressed into service to operate the vehicles.

Don't forget the other advantage- you could use your stockpile of TIE parts and the same assembly lines for, like, 80% of them. The only new parts are the treads really.


Iirc they saw heavy service in the battle of Coruscant, which was basically Imperial factions meat grinding each other.

[Simon_Jester]

IIRC wasn't the Tie-tank primarily an anti-infantry vehicle designed to replace aging AT-PTs? Would it even have any anti vehicle weapons?

My understanding was the TIE Crawler was a stopgap created to provide the Imperial Army with armored vehicles quickly and cheaply. The main advantage of the design was that that TIE pilot washouts could be pressed into service to operate the vehicles.

There almost have to have been other cheap armored vehicle designs from the Clone War era or earlier that wouldn't be such a gross failure of the basic principles of armored fighting vehicle design...

[Purple]

If nothing else they could have taken the equivalent of a cargo truck (and we've seen flying cars so we know how maneuverable their civilian vehicles are) and mounted a laser in the back technical style.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

There almost have to have been other cheap armored vehicle designs from the Clone War era or earlier that wouldn't be such a gross failure of the basic principles of armored fighting vehicle design...

I don't think there were, not even in the old EU. The only Clone Wars era vehicles I can think of right off the bat(other than the speeders) were the AT-TE, most of which seemed to have been abandoned in place, the AT-PT, which wasn't cheap, the interceptor tank(of which I know little enough about), and the Juggernaut, which not only wasn't cheap, but high maintenance as well, again, according to the EU.

[Q99]

There's AT-STs. Which are probably a bit slower, but firepower wise should stack up.

[Simon_Jester]

I mean, in a semi-realistic setting, even if the clone army didn't field such AFVs during the war, something like that almost has to have been designed and built on a local scale by someone somewhere. So you'd do better to try and mass-produce a tank design pioneered by the local militia of Zabriska VII or whatever, than to take blatantly unsuited vehicles like TIEs and kitbash them.

[Purple]

Or, as I said before just take the huge amounts of civilian owned private flying cars and airspeeders and turn them into technicals.

[Lord Revan]

Or, as I said before just take the huge amounts of civilian owned private flying cars and airspeeders and turn them into technicals.

one of the Naboo guard was essentially just that (though it was a purpose built design rather then juryrigged by adding a blaster cannon to a civilian craft), so it's not like there's been no designs like before.

[biostem]

Given the relative reliability of repulsorlift technology in Star Wars, why not just use tank equipped with them? I know that there are armed speeders, and at the very least, the CIS tanks would be a better match in this instance. The TIE Crawler is very poorly designed, and I wonder if it could even stand up to concentrated hand blaster fire...

[Batman]

It's not like hovertanks are unknown in SciFi and given repulsorlifts are a very mature technology in Wars using them in fighting vehicles would make sense (arguably more so than treads under most circumstances). Replacing A TIEs 'solar panels' (Valen how much I hate that stupid idea) with treads is about the stupidest idea for a tank I've come across.

[biostem]

It's not like hovertanks are unknown in SciFi and given repulsorlifts are a very mature technology in Wars using them in fighting vehicles would make sense (arguably more so than treads under most circumstances). Replacing A TIEs 'solar panels' (Valen how much I hate that stupid idea) with treads is about the stupidest idea for a tank I've come across.

I've always preferred the "radiator panel" argument for the panels - I agree that the "solar panel" thing is stupid.

If you were to trim the treads to about 1/2 to 1/3 the height, (no reason you'd need ll that tread there), moved the gun turret to the top, (you can place the hatch on the back or bottom), would go a long way towards increasing its utility.