Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There isn't a single Imperial tank I would even call passable with beer goggles. They are complete design failures that wouldn't have been used for a decade, let alone millenia.

I kind of look at it like it's a nod toward all of the other WW I themed aspects of this game. It's an ugly concept (that I think became a little better with the FW hulls and the newer resclupt) but I gotta say, it does fit in with the Imperium mentality of "get a box and fill it with as many guns as possible".

It looks World War 1ish... am I the only one who thinks this?

The Land Raider is WW1. That thing is straight up Mk. 1 tank.

No, clearly GW was thinking about WWI tanks when they designed it.

My first question is "why?" the old mark 1's were TERRIBLY ugly, and their TERRIBLE design flaws made them utterly useless on the WWI battlefield.

My second question is "why?" Their infantry models weren't founded on WWI, so why their tanks?

My third question is "why?" GW is making up a fictional world loosely based on various real-world themes. They could have picked ANY theme for the russ. Why did they pick the worst one?

You know how you ask a kid to draw 'What does a cat look like?' and they draw a generic cat, that actually looks nothing like a cat but is still recognisable as one, like this:



Or draw 'What does a car look like?' and get this:




Or even 'What does Uncle Clive look like?' and get this:




It's like that, but with a tank.
It has all the bits a tank should have, but they are all oversized or unworkable or ridiculous. Examples include gun calibre far far too large ( I wonder how do they lift demolisher shells from the hull to the breech?), guns too big for the breech to be accommodated by the turret mounting ring, the guns just cannot depress low enough to hit anything because the tracks are in the way, ground clearance doesn't exist, suspension doesn't exist... I could go on....

It looks a bit like an oversized toy and I agree with you that it is indeed very ugly.
On the positive side though, it's a tank. and therefore automatically awesome.

My Russes are beautiful to me, mostly because of their killing power, but they are still beautiful. Fluff wise, however, you really have to think of how mass-produced they are, and how cheap they would have to be made to maintain mass production

Nurglitch wrote:I'm pretty sure prettiness is the main design concern of fictional tanks. The Leman Russ fails magnificently by this standard. It looks like everything a tank should not be.

The Leopard II, on the other hand, was clearly designed by horny tread-heads.

Yeah the Russ is the Ugly Duckling while the Leopard IIA6 is one sexy beast!

I'd argue that I love the charm of the old WW1 tanks through from MkI to MkV and beyond. They were a failure the first time they were used but I'd look at the Battle of Amiens in August 1918 as to where and when they were useful. But that's another argument.

The second point I'd argue is more to do with the overall theme of the IG footlsogging army. It has a lot of infantry back by a lot of heavy artillery. If needs be then it can call in the tanks. I don't see what's not WW1 about this apart from mech vets and valkyries.

Again, point 3 is largely down to personal opinion. From a pracitcal standpoint I have a problem with the hull mounted weapon. It is too long and would defeat the point of the hull shape allowing it to get stuck in trenches. Lose that and it's pretty pimp.

Personally I love the Russ. It looks like something quick and simple to produce whilst performing it's role with ease.

Oh man did I come to this thread late

I agree with most of the statements. Russ chssis are too tall for what they are supposed to do, have no apparent ability to cross rough country due to no suspension and only really work because GW says they do in the rules. However the general layout of the Leman Russ battle tank goes back to the very early days of Epic scale and have obviously been considered too copyrightable/recognizable to ever change. Actually, if you look at some of the later Epic scale versions of the tank they look much nicer. A bit bulkier, lower profile, bigger reletive turret size, etc.

I think the comparison to T34s is a terrible insult. The T34 did everything right that a tank of the time neeed. It was fast, relatively light, sloping armour, reliable and had a decent gun. The only way the Russ works is by magical future power in its armour and that is based entirely on hearsay and Black Library propaganda

In summary, I don't like the Russ chassis, however you can do other things

Okay, have you seen the DKoK line of soldiers they made? Very WWI themed. Valhallans being WWII Soviets looking, Mordians look Prussian from the 1870's and the Praetorians are colonial brits.

In fact, the MKI and other WWI Brit tanks are the Russ' inspiration exactly because they were A) the first battle tanks fielded, and B) Like the company that make WH40K, British!

Look closer and the pattern appears, that GW is reliving their WWI and WWII movies watching experiences with their game. Only with power armor and lasers tossed in for good measure!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Granted the damn thing is practically over 5 metres tall!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In scale that is, or would be if someone were crazy enough to make one in 1:1 scale!

Ailaros wrote:No, clearly GW was thinking about WWI tanks when they designed it.

My first question is "why?" the old mark 1's were TERRIBLY ugly, and their TERRIBLE design flaws made them utterly useless on the WWI battlefield.

My second question is "why?" Their infantry models weren't founded on WWI, so why their tanks?

My third question is "why?" GW is making up a fictional world loosely based on various real-world themes. They could have picked ANY theme for the russ. Why did they pick the worst one?

Right, thats very inconsistent. I completely agree. I always thought that a leman russ was essentially a copy of a grant/lee tank. As if they needed to copy something and picked a somewhat obscure WW2 desin and then 40k ized it. Look at the similarities:



The only idea I could imagine would have made this work as a sci fi tank was because it looks like it has 'a lot of guns mate'. But who knows.

What never really worked for me was the lack of suspensions in all the 40k tanks except the rhino, especially with the armor that goes right up to the edge? How could that possibly work, its part of the hull as well in all the tank designs. Imperial tanks would get stuck in mud just inches deep and would high center on their armor plates, you could stop them effectively with 6 inch high blocks!

All the imperial designs would get stuck trying to do this, watch how the bogies and road wheels work:




Furthermore maintenance crews could not service the tracks, without...? How do they track tension imperial tanks? OR knock the pins out of the tracks to refit them, it's silly!

A rhino is essentially an M 113:



At least they modeled the road wheels on these. M113 turreted variants abound but I think the predator looks like a bradley:



I bring this up only to say that when they model their minis on real world tanks it seems the more modern they go the better the results are.

Snarky wrote:There are some Leman Russ stand ins, like the ever famous "Ragnarok" pattern from Epic Armageddon.

Love child of a KV-2 and a T-35?

I think the Russ looks great for it purpose. Its blocky design sends the message that it is there to F stuff up. It is like the tank is saying "Come at me bro"

It is meant to be intimidating and i think they captured that idea with the model.

Brotherjulian wrote:Love child of a KV-2 and a T-35?

Precisely.

I seem to be the only one wh0 prefers Leman Russ with sponsons for looks.

I rather like the tank, my only critique is the total lack of space for the recoil of the battlecannon. This is why though I like sponson guns for artistic reasons I consider the turret hatch an escape hatch only.

Conversely I hate the Chimera chassis the sjky shooting lasguns and the large overhang beyond the tracks both dont do it for me. I have one Hellhound, and I modified the ?transmission box? beyond the tracks into a much flatter unit.

Mattlov wrote: They are complete design failures that wouldn't have been used for a decade, let alone millenia.

Yet because a talking skull and a guy with a red robe and a body more machine than man says it is heresy to do otherwise people keep using them.

40K is a setting that has intentional regression/stagnation like this. It is a prime ingredient of the setting and a big part of the Imperium's feel in that setting.

The Imperium doesn't do what is efficient or logical, or whatever when it comes to machines (especially war engines). they do wht ancient texts and the superstitions of machine worshiping priets tell them to do.

They don't use a Russ because it looks good, nor even becasue it works well. They use it because it is holy tradition to do so and to ask "why are we using this" is heresy.

the look of the Imperium's iconic Warengines are what give it (and much of 40K0 it's distinct visual flavor and atmosphere. The nod to old real world designs mixed with grimdark tech and so forth are iconic visuals.

40K isn't about "sleek" and "logical".

The fact that it "doesnt make sense" is exactly why it DOES make sense inthe 40K universe.

If you want sleek and hi-tech go play Infinity or some other sci-fi game...

CT GAMER wrote:40K isn't about "sleek" and "logical"

OK I see some of your points. But to play devils advocate explain this:


or

or possibly:

Ugly can work, I think, as in blocky or highrpofiled or angular, the distinction I want to draw is unworkable, doesn't.

I think the Leman Russ is "ugly" because it is "unworkable".

Daedricbob wrote:You know how you ask a kid to draw 'What does a cat look like?' and they draw a generic cat, that actually looks nothing like a cat but is still recognisable as one, like this:

Or even 'What does Uncle Clive look like?' and get this:




It's like that, but with a tank.
It has all the bits a tank should have, but they are all oversized or unworkable or ridiculous. Examples include gun calibre far far too large ( I wonder how do they lift demolisher shells from the hull to the breech?), guns too big for the breech to be accommodated by the turret mounting ring, the guns just cannot depress low enough to hit anything because the tracks are in the way, ground clearance doesn't exist, suspension doesn't exist... I could go on....

It looks a bit like an oversized toy and I agree with you that it is indeed very ugly.
On the positive side though, it's a tank. and therefore automatically awesome.

Made me lol
I agree, for a tank it does look pretty bad by itself, but since it's a tank it's still cool. With the right skill, it can be made even cooler to fit higher standards.
(at first misread this thread as "Am I the only one who thinks Russians are ugly?"

I agree that the Russ is rather ungainly, but I rather like it. Much like the original land raider, it reflects the designers fetish for the Mk series of WW1 tanks.




Russ and original Raider have basically the same compressed Mk profile differing in that the raider is reversed and the Russ has a turret dropped on top .

It's not pretty. It's basically the most basic, regressed version of a tank, which reflects the regressed state of 40k imperial tech and the perenial disregard of 40k designers for anything approaching realism, practicality, or functionality. A design asthetic that has improved somewhat with Eldar and Tau, but remains largely in place for the Imperial guard.

All that to say, if you don't like the idea of MkV's in space, then the Russ really isn't going to do it for you.

And as the Adeptus Mechanicus run the forges, you are likely to see few odd designs of tanks in the Imperium's forces. They adhere to use of Standard Template Constructs, and the majority of forges are geared to make the morally sound and safe Leman Russ!

If you play Guard Armies, you have two options, use designs you like and make a decent back story for why they are used and issued.

The other option is to use and take what the Departmento Munitorum hands you to use, soldiers get a lot of kit which includes lasgun, flak vest, frag grenades.
Basically they have what they have and they rarely ever stray from it.

You have nice looking Chimera conversions, so make them a model design with e designation, write some fluff for their design, make use and why your army used that pattern of design.

Yes we know it is ugly, it has a certain charm because of, or in spite of it, but it is well known, easily recognized, and is for the Imperium, "Standard Issue". I look for oddball tanks and do all I advised. It can be fun in and of itself!

I love my women like I love my leman russes... big, wide and ugly.... eeerrr wait no no this turned out pretty wrong.


I like the look of the Leman Russes, it really goes well with the other imperial tanks and transports. If they were to look differently (more like our modern tanks) it wouldn't look Gritty Sci-fi/gothic opera and it would ruin the whole image of the 40k universe.

Love'em or hate'em, there is no other way. I would love'em if I was to collect IG .

Augustus wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:40K isn't about "sleek" and "logical"

OK I see some of your points. But to play devils advocate explain this:


or

or possibly:

Ugly can work, I think, as in blocky or highrpofiled or angular, the distinction I want to draw is unworkable, doesn't.

I think the Leman Russ is "ugly" because it is "unworkable".

And I'd say that from these three, the Tau tank is just plain butt ugly, the design (or the lack of) is just revolting to me. Ive got 3 of these tanks and daaaamn, The engineer that made it was really high, when making this blob.

Altough the piranhas are very nice in design and the Manta is awesome... Just the hammerhead/devilfish is stupid in my opinion.

Not if you paint it wicked cool.... I'm in the process of doing a renegade militia russ with icons, etc.

Brother SRM wrote:I really like how ugly it is. It just looks brutal, heavy, and nasty. It's meant to look like a World War I tank, and it succeeds in that.

It's a Chibi version of a British WW1 tank.

The British tanks were designed around several main criteria, none of which apply to modern tanks or the 40K tanks.

1. They needed a very long track run to cross trenches. There are no modern tanks which are as good at crossing trenches.
2. The engine and gearbox were primitive and took up a lot of space. Four crew were needed to operate the gears and steering on the early models.
3. It wasn't possible to fit a turret, because the industrial capacity for making them was needed for the navy. The guns had to be put in sponsons.

I have to disagree, tanks aren't supposed to be pretty, they are supposed to be big lumbering behemoths trudging thought the battlefield, it's supposed to be square and miss-shapen, it's supposed to look old and rusty, let's face it, it's the imperium of man, they aren't exactly the most advanced army. The tank it's self is designed in order to protect the crew not be some kind of fashion statement, sure we can paint them to look pretty awesome but the whole point in the tank is it's supposed to be a huge intimidating block of metal firing rounds at you and ripping appart your moral and squad, besides no one collects space marines becuase thier old crack and bashed battleworn armour looks pretty. No one collects chaos because they look pretty. So all in all, I think the Russ is a flawed look, and sure it's not too pretty, but it's won me more than one battle or two.

Ailaros wrote:After only a moment I realised that I was at a total loss. The Leman Russ chassis is unconquerably ugly.

Yep.
Even for a tank, it's ugly. My main beef is that it is way too small to house the entire crew AND ammunition for the turret gun, as well as secondary ammo for the other weapons.

I don't use them for my guard army. I use Pig Iron Productions "Ironside" tank hulls for mine. With a scratchbuilt turret.

It's the same width as a russ (with or without sponsons), but about 40% longer as well, so the overall height seems not as tall.
It has the added advantage of looking like it is actually big enough to house the crew, as well as the guns.
There are two of them. The Hammer and The Slammer, but the turret gun is a modular mount on mine, changing from regular russ to punisher, demolisher or regular.
I don't like the dual autocannon one or the plasmafactory.

CT GAMER wrote:I find it rather "beautifully ugly" in the same way that a Russian KV-2 is and am rather fond of it.

Keep Imperium vehicles (especially IG) gritty, and unrefined.

If you want fancy/pretty go play Eldar or tau.

If we consider an army of Imperial Guards, who in the universe encompass the majority of the numbers, it's not really hard to chalk the look of the tanks to its role, a mass produced vehicle that does not need to be pretty but efficient. Gritty and unrefined is a good way of putting it, it suits the Imperial Guard, they are IMHO just like the vehicles they use

There is quite a good widened/stretched Russ that I have seen (there is a link to it in endtransmission's PLog I think).

You just have to pretty much rebuild the entire tank to do it

Edit: I think this is it. I can't see any of the pictures, but I think this is the one I mean.

Edit 2:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a Chibi version of a British WW1 tank.

That's the word I was looking for! Like the squat little anime figures. The RT Raider could be described the same way.

Augustus wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:40K isn't about "sleek" and "logical"

OK I see some of your points. But to play devils advocate explain this:


or

or possibly:

The top two do not represent the IG asthetic, which has remained relatively unchanged since it's inception. Anyone remember the goofy bulby armorcast eldar tanks?

The last picture is neither sleek nor logical. Nothing about huge lumbering targets is remotely militarily logical....
...but it sure is cool.

Right, I think it's cool because it looks ugly but mechanically workable, or viable, I could imagine it striding around. Even though it would be impractical, it appears as if it could function. Not like the Leman Russ, which looks ugly and mechanically unworkable too.

(EDIT) I actually like cosmetically all the 40k designs, this is really an academic argument I am making for a minor beef and the purpose of discussion. I do have some issues with the egregiously non functioning aspects of the tank designs in the IG, but, I find it humorous to fixate on that to much in a world where a guy with a big hammer is better at killing tanks than say, an auto cannon, or a guided missile. Or a power sword is more dangerous than a bolter. It is kind of a silly comic book world, so the logic of beating on the tank designs as impractical is unfair when looking at the troops in the game too as they are equally absurd.