Why are Predators with Autocannons retarded?

[GrogDaTyrant]

That would work in theory, except that you don't see infantry carrying shoulder mounted howitzers. My point is, why is this a dedicated tank, an honest to god fighting platform, with a gun on it that infantry can carry?

I mean, make it a "heavy autocannon" or something and give it 2 shots at strength 8 or 3 at s7 to represent that it's a f***ing TANK.

Infantry cannot carry any other weapon a Predator can have on it's primary turret. That's like saying "I'm going to equip this tank with an M16."

One thing I'd like to point out, is that numerous tanks throughout WW2 carried turret-mounted versions of the same guns that the gun-teams were fielding. Granted this was mostly found among the Soviet and German (and other Eastern Front Nationality) tanks. But still the fact remains that the Tiger mounted the same 88 that field-gun crews were firing, with exceptions to how it was mounted. Other such examples of this include the T-34/85's 85mm main gun (the Soviet 85mm being an Anti-Aircraft cannon, originally), as well as the SU-76m mounting the ZIS-3 76mm field gun. And that's saying nothing about the 'Self-Propelled-Artillery' vehicles like the ISU-122 and ISU-152, which were little more than an IS-2 chassis with a hull-mounted artillery field gun.

In those regards, I personally think the Auotcannon Predator turret is the most sensible turret-design of 40k Marine vehicles. So often you see twin-linked gun turrets that look ridiculous from a design standpoint, simply because it would leave no room for the crew or gun housing within the painfully small turret. And seeing how the Autocannon is not a man-portable weapon at all (note that it is a gun-team for IG, not unlike WW2 field guns), it also makes sense in that regard as well. Marines are just different in that they are supposedly big enough to carry their own miniaturized versions of the Imperial field-guns into battle, even if it means apparently still being unable to fire it while at a run.

On a side note, almost all 40k tanks are infantry-support. Few (if any) are actually designed per the rules to engage other tanks to an adequate degree of success. The Lemun Russ Vanquisher is about the only one in that is a moderate AT weapon (Annihilator being a close second), but is still horribly outmatched by other tank-destroyers like Multi-Melta Land-Speeders, Melta-Hounds, Melta-vets in a Vendetta, Combi-melta Sternguard, etc.

[L192837465]

One thing I'd like to point out, is that numerous tanks throughout WW2 carried turret-mounted versions of the same guns that the gun-teams were fielding. Granted this was mostly found among the Soviet and German (and other Eastern Front Nationality) tanks. But still the fact remains that the Tiger mounted the same 88 that field-gun crews were firing, with exceptions to how it was mounted. Other such examples of this include the T-34/85's 85mm main gun (the Soviet 85mm being an Anti-Aircraft cannon, originally), as well as the SU-76m mounting the ZIS-3 76mm field gun. And that's saying nothing about the 'Self-Propelled-Artillery' vehicles like the ISU-122 and ISU-152, which were little more than an IS-2 chassis with a hull-mounted artillery field gun.

In those regards, I personally think the Auotcannon Predator turret is the most sensible turret-design of 40k Marine vehicles. So often you see twin-linked gun turrets that look ridiculous from a design standpoint, simply because it would leave no room for the crew or gun housing within the painfully small turret. And seeing how the Autocannon is not a man-portable weapon at all (note that it is a gun-team for IG, not unlike WW2 field guns), it also makes sense in that regard as well. Marines are just different in that they are supposedly big enough to carry their own miniaturized versions of the Imperial field-guns into battle, even if it means apparently still being unable to fire it while at a run.

On a side note, almost all 40k tanks are infantry-support. Few (if any) are actually designed per the rules to engage other tanks to an adequate degree of success. The Lemun Russ Vanquisher is about the only one in that is a moderate AT weapon (Annihilator being a close second), but is still horribly outmatched by other tank-destroyers like Multi-Melta Land-Speeders, Melta-Hounds, Melta-vets in a Vendetta, Combi-melta Sternguard, etc.

Oh I fully understand this regard, and I applaud your knowledge of WWII era tanks and weaponry, my point being, they mounted that weapon inside a tank for a reason: Mobility. It was to keep up with the ground troops. Now I do understand that mounting an autocannon on a tank DOES make it more mobile than if it were foot-slogged, what my issue is is that of all predator variants, it is the weakest choice by a long shot. Sponsons aside (hah) there is no reason. You get better resiliancy and firepower (for cheaper) by taking (for example) Chaos Havocs with 4x autocannons to two or even three predators.

I'm not saying the weapon doesn't make sense (I agree it's probably the most realistic choice on a pred) but I'm saying why is that particular variant so weak compared to every other razorback or pred variant?

[MaltonNecromancer]

I always thought it was just a throw-back to 1st edition 40K, back when Autocannon were supposed to represent futuristic 135mm tank cannon.

Back then, the Autocannon was a bit of a beast.

Basically, the rules have changed, but the Predator's armament hasn't. The Leman Russ Exterminator Autocannon is the closest modern equivelant to the old Predator armament; those same rules would make the Predator actually worth taking, as the Exterminator is a pretty sound anti-infantry tank.

[GrogDaTyrant]

I'm not saying the weapon doesn't make sense (I agree it's probably the most realistic choice on a pred) but I'm saying why is that particular variant so weak compared to every other razorback or pred variant?

Well, a lot of that reason is due to 40k's bizarre rule-design. In reality, twin-linking a weapon mount means doubling the ammunition expenditure of the weapon, as well as increasing the size of the gun's housing (requiring a bigger turret), etc. etc. The reason we don't see Abrahms or Challenger 2's driving around with twin-linked main cannons, is because the reload time would increase dramatically, and the entire tank's interior would likely have to be redesigned for a substantial increase in ammo storage.

In sci-fi you can get by a lot of that with magic-science guns like Lascannons or Multi-Meltas, which in fluff just need recharge-time, or have their ammo-reserves contained in handy magic-science fuel-cells. Likewise in 40k you can have (overly) simplified rulesets that take into account none of the realistic issues of mounting a twin-linked massive assault-gun that's spraying coffee-can sized shells at hundreds of rounds per minute (where do the Baal predators keep all that ammo!?).

So really I think the biggest problem isn't with the Autocannon-pred itself, but rather just how the 40k is built upon the "Rule of Cool", with no regard to the logistical problems of a twin-linked weapon, or let alone why multi-deck turrets and sponsons stopped being used in tank design. As for what could be done? Well aside from just making it a blast/ordnance weapon (not unlikely, given 40k's track-record), an alternative method would be to just give single-mount tank cannons different ammo types. From HE (High Explosive) rounds that have lower-strength but utilize a big template, to AP or HEAP (Armor Penetration / High Explosive Armor Penetration) that instead use straight Ballistic Skill and have a higher Strength profile.

[Grenadier]

It never made sense to me for the Predator to not have twin linked autocannons in the turret. I know many players would prefer a lascannon to an autocannon. But I love the autocannon. My Imperial Guard is chockful of them. And as far as I can tell the only autocannons in a Marine army are on Predators. I've never understood why it is not an option for them amongst Devastator squads. They'd look pretty nifty with autocannons don't you think? For its points it's a great weapon. Two medium range strength hits at a good range per turn. The AP isn't all that sweet but it's certain to wound or penetrate all but the toughest armor.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I just find it curious that BS4 Space Marines seem to have more twin-linked stuff than BS3 IG.

[obithius]

As someone already touched on, it's a relic from 1st/2nd edition. Back then the autocannon was str 8, save -3, d6 wounds and 72" range. And had 1 sustained fire die. Armour penetration was 2d6+8 which wasn't great. Certainly good enough for a turret mounted weapon.

[Kawauso]

I just find it curious that BS4 Space Marines seem to have more twin-linked stuff than BS3 IG.

Most of the IG stuff is some form of template, though. Or in the case of the Punisher cannon, puts out 20 shots.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

That is true. You are right about that, now that I think on it. At least outside of heavy weapons teams, that is.

I'm still not sure BS4 dudes need much twin-linked weaponry but it certainly looks cool which is probably more important in the end.

[GrogDaTyrant]

I just find it curious that BS4 Space Marines seem to have more twin-linked stuff than BS3 IG.

In that regard, I think a better question is why don't other armies in general get more twin-linked options. There are numerous armies that have limited twin-linking options, or even had them reduced.