Ohoh... the instant-hitting alone would make the lascannon a very different beast on the field. For one, you don't have to aim with it. Just turn it to the direction of the target, pull the trigger and the beam will instantly hit regardless of range, wind conditions, evasive maneuvers or anything

Not having to aim as much (=guesstimating lead and projectile fall) still does not equal not having to aim at all . You don't just point a barrel into the general direction of an enemy force and fire blindly - not over such a distance, and especially not when the target is moving.

Likewise, not having to know about angles does not equal not having to know other details of an enemy target. Every Imperial tank has tracks, an engine, and a turret - this means it has the exact same weaknesses as a WW2 tank. And just like with WW2 tanks, its armour is weaker in the rear, too.

That said ... I don't have any personal experience as a gunner in WW2 ( ), but I've got a feeling that conditions on the fields of battle often made it nigh-impossible to make precise shots, anyways, unless you were shooting at a stationary target.

And actually ... angles would influence a lascannon shot, too, because if the beam hits a sloped surface, the energy will be spread across a broader area, meaning a loss in penetration as the impact is diffused rather than focused.

Coincidentally, 40k also knows stuff like reflective armour ("micro-crystals which help to redirect and dissipate laser bolts" - originally from GW's Inquisitor rulebook, but some FFG RPGs use this as well), so knowing where a tank may be fitted with such layers and where not may help as well, as this would obviously affect dissipation on angled surfaces even further. Indeed, it seems you may end up with a lascannon shot "ricocheting" off a tank, just like in WW2.

tl;dr: "Specially trained anti-tank" in 40k means that they have to know the range of their weapon, how its shots are affected by local conditions (wind/dust/etc), how to best deploy and position their weapon, and how to effectively engage enemy tanks.

So ... not that different from a PaK-crew, is it?

Aside from perhaps las weapons being easier to use and maintain, but this has zero effect on battlefield tactics.

And when you spread out your lascannons amongst the squads (this is also a good idea because the lascannon is not a very stealthy weapon so a wider distribution will decrease material losses too), you move pretty darn far away from the way the Pak (or any other AT weapon, including ATGMs) was fielded.

Yes, if . Dedicated heavy weapons teams are rather popular in the Imperial Guard, though!

Not having to aim as much (=guesstimating lead and projectile fall) still does not equal not having to aim at all . You don't just point a barrel into the general direction of an enemy force and fire blindly - not over such a distance, and especially not when the target is moving.

Actually, in the case of laser weapons, you really don't have to aim. If the target is in the weapon sight when you pull the trigger, then you will hit him with a 100% chance. Normally, this isn't the case of course, as projectile weapons are affected by a huge variety of environmental conditions (gravity, bullet travelling speed, wind) but with the lascannon, you can throw ballistics out of the window. The lascannon (and every other laser weapon for that matter) is pretty much a point&click weapon. Even though I must admit, this isn't represented in the rules at all .

And angles won't influence the lascannon because its energy won't "spread" but remain in a tight beam regardless of the surface hit. This is one of the biggest advantages of direct energy weapons.

This debate also makes me wonder: while it is cool to have an argument on whether one should charge a Leman Russ with shaped charges or kill it with missiles from afar, the actual answer will quickly become moot as soon as our new tank hunters face a Wave Serpent or any other not-even-distantly-WW1/2 vehicle. I mean, it is not like charging a Wave Serpent with a melta bomb will result in anything constructive other than the pointless death of the charger. And for one, I'm 500% sure that no Pak crew had to shot down anything like a flying tank with magic guns ...

Actually, in the case of laser weapons, you really don't have to aim. If the target is in the weapon sight when you pull the trigger, then you will hit him with a 100% chance.

What do you call the act of moving the crosshair to the target, if not aiming?

And I'd say it is suitably represented in the rules because even though the game is turn-based, the miniatures are still assumed to move, and hitting a moving target can be difficult even with a "point and click" weapon - especially once you factor in the "noise" of a battlefield such as nearby explosions, smoke walls, incoming fire, or possible poor lighting conditions based on the time of day and the planet in question.

And angles won't influence the lascannon because its energy won't "spread" but remain in a tight beam regardless of the surface hit. This is one of the biggest advantages of direct energy weapons.

"Light" is essentially packets of photons, and a laser amplifies them. When a laser shot impacts on a tank, the surface area is bombarded with millions of photons, causing the area to heat up rapidly.

Larger areas - such as a sloped surface - take longer to heat up, simply because you won't have as many photons hit the same spot.

How exactly a lascannon shot looks like depends on the source; by now I've seen anything from blasts to pulses (though only the latter would make any sense) - but regardless of how they are described, any type of laser shot will have an end , and even if your laser would cook the very same spot on a tank for a full ten minutes, it would do less damage than the same weapon hitting a non-sloped surface, simply because the latter would have resulted in more photons impacting the same area.

Just like setting a piece of dry paper on fire happens faster if you use a magnifying glass, instead of just waiting for the sun's radiation alone.

Maybe! You could always hope the Eldar don't see you coming.

And angles won't influence the lascannon because its energy won't "spread" but remain in a tight beam regardless of the surface hit. This is one of the biggest advantages of direct energy weapons.

"Light" is essentially packets of photons, and a laser amplifies them. When a laser shot impacts on a tank, the surface area is bombarded with millions of photons, causing the area to heat up rapidly.

Larger areas - such as a sloped surface - take longer to heat up, simply because you won't have as many photons hit the same spot.

Just giving example picture what Lynata is saying.

Just a picture of Earth's surface and how much sunlight diffuses when it hits area in direct/sloped angle. Both areas get same amount of sunlight but distribution is larger and not so warm on sloped area.

(Sorry Earth, you are the best example)

The whole Javelin-comparison was mainly to illustrate that the same technology, a Krak-Warhead, can be used in many different ways to massivly different effects just like a HEAT-Warhead
and for every employment of a weapon soon countermassues are found like reactive armour

so mainly my point would be that, like someone already stated, for example make a master-crafted hunter-killer that always hits in the side armour if you took a full action aim

adapt the rules if you find something fun to replicate or something unheard of
its 40k dammit, one book makes Space Marines nigh unkillable and in the next a Guardsman shoots a Marines arm of with a shotgun hit

Somehow, people seem to miss with rifles at 20 meters with some regularity, without gravity playing any appreciable role and with travel time to the target being effectively instantaneous. Sometimes this even involves them aiming first.