BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Mark V Armour

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grimmas View Post
    MKV was never mass produced though it was an Ad-hoc affair using what ever was available which was basically bit of other suits. It wasn't the cheaper option it was the only option because they were unable to access the manufacturing base for power armour. Really none of the suits should look the same much less all have the same helmets and greaves that look to come from a design not yet manufactured.
    I heard on a Podcast that one of the honchos at forgeworld I want to say his name was Lori Goulding or something like that I could be totally wrong on the name, but anyways, it shouldn't even be called a mark of armor and apparently when people call it mark 5 it drives him up the wall because it was never produced as a full set it was adhoc as you say.

  2. #12

    Default


    Look suspiciously like MkV? This comes from a MkIV armoured Sons of Horus officer who fought at Isstvan III. The helmet at least already existed. MkV was produced, but it was produced in an ad-hoc manner, which is the cobbled together side of it. It wasn't a standardised design, and the designation MkV was a retrospective move post-Heresy as a catch-all for the similar designs employed as a stop-gap during the Heresy. This pattern of respirator (the mantilla pattern) must have proved far easier to replicate in limited production facilities than the standard MkIV respirator.
    Last edited by Haighus; 01-22-2016 at 05:06 PM.
    In the nightmare future of the 41st millennium, there is no time for peace. No respite. No Balance. There is only War.

  3. #13

    Default

    Could be like the beaky helmet. Limited production run from a ditched or experimental pattern put on ice then found.
    Can almost imagine a legionnaire reporting back
    "breached the doors sir"
    "whats inside?"
    "helmets sir. Wall to wall helmets."

    Then they divvy them out to their allies. Any evidence of manufactorums specialized in just armor parts, not full suits? Would kind of explain the consistency in looks to certain parts. Ad hoc seems to imply rebuilds and modifications (to me) and there isnt enough variety.

  4. #14
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Norfolk (God's County)
    Posts
    4,522

    Default

    The original fluff (UK WD 129) had the armour as a stop gap, using other components - the helmet was a spin off from the Terminator Armour program.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/246657200/...er-1990#scribd
    I'M RATHER DEFINATELY SURE FEMALE SPACE MARINES DEFINERTLEY DON'T EXIST.

  5. #15
    Brother-Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Her Majesty's United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,344

    Default

    It certainly did Denzark but that has been expanded on since. The terminator helmet doesn't really explain why there's so many of them or the complete absence of MkII and III parts.

    Haigus good point on the helmet.
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit
    Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

  6. #16

    Default

    If you look at the original fluff in WD129, I don't think ad hoc is the best description. My recollection is that the design was rushed -- using elements of the design from existing marks, as well as a helmet based around the Terminator model. The suits weren't literally cobbled together from existing parts; the design was an amalgam of bits of existing designs.

    Which is not to say that in the field damaged components wouldn't've been replaced with bits from other suits, and/or bits subbed out where the alternative was better.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grimmas View Post
    It certainly did Denzark but that has been expanded on since. The terminator helmet doesn't really explain why there's so many of them or the complete absence of MkII and III parts.

    Haigus good point on the helmet.
    something as ancient as mark II or III parts would have been scattered pretty hard but there are other issues on how different these armours were compared to the later ones. Mark II is built of micro-fitted rings of cermatie, which was noted as being tougher to repair and adapt for use with other later models parts, the III is super heavy and armoured making the use of its parts beneficial for armour purposes but not cool for stealth/mobility. also III was made as a specialized suit and not necessarily a standard replacement so its unknown how many were actually made

  8. #18
    Brother-Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Her Majesty's United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,344

    Default

    To be totally fair to them I think the problem started when they put Marine in what was to become known as MKVII (they hadn't named the armour types at this point) on the cover art of First Ed Space Marine.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	214 
Size:	137.7 KB 
ID:	16980

    And they've being trying to paper over it since.

    I would have liked it if they'd taken the opportunity to make the models to fit with the current (which has been around quite a while) background to it after all they'd only ever made one of the WD 129 MKVs as it were.

    I probably fit into the same category at the Forge World chappie Alaric mentions.
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit
    Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

  9. #19
    Brother-Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Her Majesty's United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkhan Land View Post
    something as ancient as mark II or III parts would have been scattered pretty hard but there are other issues on how different these armours were compared to the later ones. Mark II is built of micro-fitted rings of cermatie, which was noted as being tougher to repair and adapt for use with other later models parts, the III is super heavy and armoured making the use of its parts beneficial for armour purposes but not cool for stealth/mobility. also III was made as a specialized suit and not necessarily a standard replacement so its unknown how many were actually made
    I'd always thought that MKII &III would have taken longer to manufacture due to the rings but it would have made it easier/cheaper to repair because one would only have to replace the damaged rings rather than the whole greave for example. Where as with MKIV and above the one piece nature of things like the greaves would have made mass production easier but you would need to replace the whole damaged part much like how Mail armour was supplanted by the plate once production methods improved and they are able to press out breastplates and the like (and of course it offers petter protection). The net result being that the earlier marks require less spares which wasn't really relevant when the Imperium as a whole was supplying the Legions but became an issue once the Heresey started to squeeze things.
    Last edited by grimmas; 01-23-2016 at 08:26 AM.
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit
    Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grimmas View Post
    I'd always thought that MKII &III would have taken longer to manufacture due to the rings but it would have made it easier/cheaper to repair because one would only have to replace the damaged rings rather than the whole greave for example. Where as with MKIV and above the one piece nature of things like the greaves would have made mass production easier but you would need to replace the whole damaged part much like how Mail armour was supplanted by the plate once production methods improved and they are able to press out breastplates and the like (and of course it offers petter protection). The net result being that the earlier marks require less spares which wasn't really relevant when the Imperium as a whole was supplying the Legions but became an issue once the Heresey started to squeeze things.
    I reckon the difference in repair is somewhat similar to the differences between WWII tanks. The T34 was very easy to repair, if there was a problem with one of the road wheels, they could be easily taken off and swapped for a fresh one.

    A bit like a greave on MkIV, the whole piece can be easily removed and replaced. It may be difficult to repair the greave itself once removed, but it is very easy to replace it.
    MkII is more like a German tank, which was just as effective in terms of function, but if one of the road wheels on the inside of the drive assembly, adjacent to the hull, broke, multiple road wheels had to be removed to replace the wheel, because the wheels overlap.

    Similarly, in MkII greaves, if one of the middle rings is badly damaged, it is likely at least one other ring would have to be removed to replace it, because the rings overlap, and there are more attachments and articulation points that may need repairing.
    It is likely simple to manufacture because is it generally easier to make smaller segments of something than one large, complete piece.
    In the nightmare future of the 41st millennium, there is no time for peace. No respite. No Balance. There is only War.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •