Something I've noticed-Titans in wh40k (including our own manta) are hugely exaggerated in description. They describe emperor titans as being blot-out-the-sun huge, but I have personally seen places where they would be perfectly capable or standing up inside (such as the Hagia Sofia) going by the 50m description. Manta are described as being almost small closer to escorts than bombers, and being enormously huge in atmosphere, but they are (going by the wingspan in IA III) only 25cm wider than a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, though they do carry more (firewarriors ARE smaller than humans...) and the Spruce Goose having almost twice the wingspan.

This leaves me thinking that GW authors have no sense of scale. While a 50m tall warmachine IS huge, it is nothing LIKE big enough to meet their descriptions.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't get too bogged down into serious details about GW fluff, it's a complex mix which has been written by numerous authors so there are plenty of times when something written by one (eg. the exact scale of a titan) do not match with what another has written (eg. the description of a titan blocking the sun), just always remember that in the end authors have artistic license and will use it so their descriptions may be used to give a sense of awe even if they do not fit with the "facts" layed down by another. (I also put facts in quotes as the Warhammer facts are as inconstant as the sea at times, I can't remember exactly when the Damocles gulf happened anymore and don't get me started on the Necrons )

I think the scale of our miniatures is very different from the fluff. For example the average space marine is 7 to 8 feet tall while our firewarriors rarely hit six feet, the models on the other hand are almost the same height. Look at most transports in the game, do you really think you can fit all twelve guys into that devilfish even if you don't glue the door shut? The models have to differ in scale from the fluff or else actually playing with them would be much more difficult. That manta for example might take up half the apocalypse board by itself if it was to scale with our infantry.

Try not to think about it.

Theoretically a Titan could blot out the sun... during sunset on certain planets at certain favorable locations. The scale of the "small stuff" (anything in 40k proper) is nonsense usually, made for modeling convenience or "ooh look! numbers!" and never really thought out. I'm pretty happy with that.

Once you go bigger, they actually have a remarkably good idea of what "big" means, given usual sci-fi fare. Check the sizes for warships, for example. They're bigger than modern big cities, and have ecosystems to match. Occasionally planets have more than one biome, and usually when they don't, it's because the Tyranids had something to say about it. Macragge even has polar ice caps! Do you have any idea how rare that is in science fiction?

If you want to be reminded of why technobabble is bad, though... Land Raiders also have thinner armor than steam ships did. By about a factor of 10. (Abrams tanks come in at a factor of 4-8 depending on variant.) Bolters being .75 caliber is also hilarious given how big they're supposed to be. (Mind you, those rounds would be absolutely humongous for a human bullet-shooting rifle, but for a Space Marine automatic grenade launcher? Pff. Compare the U.S. military's favorite, the Mk 19)

It should be noted that over on Bolter and Chainsword there's this thing called "Truescaling" where you make a Space Marine look like they're described and pictured; i.e. actually bigger than people.

The other things you have to remember is there are different class sizes of Titans...if you read a lot they talk about that fact quite a bit. Just like in star wars there are different sized star destroyers. The original idea of a titan being a mobile fortress has shrunk and grown. And as always wars are written by the winners...and lets face it space marines like things big...or to talk big.

Titan sizes are about the most inconsistent thing in 40k canon. Warhounds shoot around all over the place from being about 50 feet high to hundreds of meters tall. Imperators have sometimes been implied to be miles high, and less than a hundred meters in others.

And yeah, the model scales aren't really useful for determining anything 'canon'. Honestly, the stats the IA books give don't gel much either--the speeds they give for Imperial tanks are stupidly slow, and while Leman Russes and the likes have never been described as particularly fast, they have consistently at least been made out to be capable of attaining a decent pace.

I'd be interested in seeing these sources that put Imperators at several miles tall and warhounds at hundreds of meters. Because I have never seen anything like that.

Also the speeds they give for imperial tanks are fine. Tanks aren't known for speed. M1A1 moves 40km/h (25mph)

I don't know where you're getting this information. The M1 series move from about 66km/h to 72km/h, which in miles per hour is around 40-45mph. Also note that at these speeds, the tank can also accurately fire its main 120mm cannon AND all of its "defensive" weapons. Oh, and the strike range(engagement range) for the M1A2SEP is around the tune of 4000 meters.

So if you compare, the tanks on average in W40k move about 4 times as slow as they should, and can not fire at that speed. If you take average troop movement(ie 6") and assume your average runner moves about 5-6 mph under a combat load, then 6" equals about 5-8mph at the FASTEST. So a tank moving full speed is about 15-20mph at the FASTEST.

Needless to say, tanks in 40k are ridiculously dumbed down for balance. If tanks were accurate in their abilities, even close, we would be playing Flames of War, not 40k. Simply put, a realistic "tank" that copied the M1 in 40k would be able to move 24"(easily), fire all weapons(which would be like a battle cannon, a heavy stubber and 2-3 bolters and Hunter killer missiles), be AV14 all around, ignore night fight, be able to target flyers(the M1 has a flak round for targeting low flying aircraft) and would be BS7.

*I'm glad tanks in W40k are NOT accurately portrayed*

Off roading the M1A1 moves at 25mph (40Km/h). On paved surfaces, it moves 35mph (56Km/h). That is fact.

They would not be BS7. All the stats in wh40k are relative. A Space Marine would not miss 33% of the time, and rapid fire weapons would shoot more than twice. According to IA, a fair number of 40k vehicles (especially tau) have 1-2 crew members, so firing one weapon while moving makes sense. Also, at the distances in 40k, acquiring targets would be hard for the tank, as it is not rare for troops to be within spitting distance of the tanks (6" at 1:64 scale=9.5m).

M1 weaponry would NOT equal a battle cannon, or a hunter-killer, or bolters. Heavy stubber maybe, as it's pretty low tech by 40k standards.

Tanks represented realistically in 40k would all be AV8-9. Bolters are rapid fire RPG-7s (except stronger, because RPG-7s have terrible accuracy, don't have a diamond tip, don't move as fast and waste a large portion of their explosive power by exploding outside it's target rather than inside) and in the last book of the Salamanders trilogy, Tu'shan bench pressed a land raider. 40k is just everything scaled up to ridiculous levels. Can you honestly say that an abrams wouldn't be automatically penetrated by a direct hit from a weapon that heats it's surface to the temperature of the sun? If you've seen how the US navy guns worked, you'd realize that railguns would be like a StrD jotww. And it wouldn't be able to target flyers because low flying aircraft are basically skimmers. The actual apoc flyers are NOT low flying.

I don't have the exact sources on me, but they come from assorted novels; BL doesn't really have much of a vigorous canon check as other franchises do, so even things like how exactly lasguns work vary a lot. Of course this can be explained by how variable items of technology in 40k can be depending on their origin, but it does get silly sometimes.

Also edited my last post to remove a silly mistake.

I've read about 90% of forgeworld and black library publication, and have yet to see a depiction of an imperator being taller than 52-60m

Off the top of my head, 'Savage Scars', a relatively recent novel, has either Warhound or Warlord Titans being 'hundreds of meters' high and necessitating Tau forces to drop entire stealthsuit cadres on them.

While it's true that stealthsuits (not entire cadres) were dropped on a warhound, they make no reference to warhounds being hundreds of meters tall.

After reading Titanicus by Dan Abnett, I got the since that a Warhound titan would be about a 25-30 story construct. In the book it talked about them sneaking through city ruins and hiding inside structures. Like wise a Warlord titan was somewhere around 100 stories tall. If you are interested in the subject the book was a very good break down of Titan warfare in 40k, and a good read at that. It left me thinking afterwards why GW has not created or someone has not converted an adeptus mechanicus skitarii army.

Thurgen

I read Titanicus, and nothing in the book would suggest anything near that height. Normal buildings are about 5-8 stories, for a warhound to be hiding inside them...warhounds are about 4 storeys anyways, since storeys are generally about 12' each and warhounds are 45'. Look at any warhound artwork, you'll see them standing about 8x a space marines, 3x a dread.

The way I saw it in my head and from the descriptions of the surrounding buildings in the capital city, and of the areas surrounding the city, the size of the titans 25-30 stories and taller is what I envisioned. Especially when the author wrote about how whole sections of the city were destroyed and crushed due to the rout that some of the Warlord class titans took towards the engagement. Remember buildings in hive cities can be miles tall. That is at least the description I took away from the author.

Thurgen

Indirectly, they do; the Tau buildings they smash up are mentioned as hundreds of meters tall, and yet the Warlords are too big for battlesuits to jump onto them from said buildings.

It said the tallest of the buildings were hundreds of meters tall. Big distinction there.

IIRC, it was a forgeworld, not a hive world.

Remember for scale purposes, titan weapons can be put on tanks. Miles tall is quite frankly ridiculous, and no author has been fanciful enough to describe them as such. Another thing to remember, in Storm of Iron Warhounds hid behind a wall. A wall short enough that it was scaled by Honsou. Also, Forrix beat one in CC, so it was quite evidently NOT miles tall. Nor is any titan. Nor shall be any titan. Remember, they have to be flown down to the surface in ships. If they were MILES tall, they would have to have cruisers and battleships bring them down, because they would be as big as them. Also, if they were that big these titans would likely have their own gravity well, because they would be THAT big.

Not entirely related, but I once did that in the Rogue Trader RPG. I bashed its face in with a flail until its armor popped off while the rest of the team was trying to get inside it to kill the crew. I killed it before they got there. Yay 1/10 chance for critical hits every time you roll dice!

Miles tall is, as you said, ridiculous. Warships are only miles long, so a Titan that big might as well mount a warp drive and fly itself. The fact that you can transport a Titan Legion with a reasonably sized fleet speaks volumes. They're roughly building sized for various definitions of "building" depending on which type of Titan.

More to the original point, I do think the Manta is way too tiny in Apocalypse. They're jump capable and always used in fluff to engage entire "waves" (note plural) of attack craft, despite said attack craft being not that much smaller that the listed size for it. The word "Destroyer" also brings to mind a light escort ship, not a something smaller than a B-52 (yes, really)... and it certainly makes me think of something too big to be crewed by only eight people.