This is a continuation of a discussion that started page two of: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/237895.page

I know its come up before in the past, but lets go. Many people have wanted to see a substantial redesign of the leman russ. With GW's very slight redo of the Leman Russ extra detail is being added and aspects are being reworked, but the vast majority is still the same.

Some have even gone to the length of creating garage kits:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/28282-Imperial%20Guard%2C%20Leman%20Russ.html?w=600

Others conversions:
http://k43.pbase.com/u9/blitzjaeger/upload/34903525.DSC00063.JPG
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee25/CaiLeonas/M-24VariantActionIII.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee25/CaiLeonas/M-24LRvariantTopProfile.jpg
http://www.battlegroup.net/blog/?page_id=11
http://img15.picoodle.com/img/img15/3/3/25/colgravis/f_LRtestbuildm_10bf38d.jpg

Lots of different ideas. A good number that deviate, but generally with pushing them more high tech.

In general, what do you all see as flaws and issues with the leman russ battle tank model?

Giant vertical profile, tiny turret, looks like a kids toy. Those are my biggest gripes.

For me, the LR need to fix these:

Over all model too tall ,

Turret should be broader

The 2 sides need to be lowered by 30%

Side should be made to match sponson position option like stormlord

Whilst the kit might well benefit from an upgrade, this should follow the model presented by the rhino, ie that whilst the kit increases in size, gets additional detail and sprues full of extra bitz, no change should occur to the overall aesthetic of the Leman Russ.

The Leman Russ, like the Rhino, the devilfish bodyshape, the falcon bodyshape, is now iconic of the army type.

It should look antiquated rather than modernised, the entire Imperium is trapped in a downward spiraling dark age, losing it's technology and the ability to create as knowledge and worlds are lost.

New kit fine, new look not fine.

Check this one:

http://www.heavy-support.com/

There is a guy over at Warseer who is building these, I´ll see if can remember were...

I think one of the issues with the Leman Russ' aesthetic is that its proportions are too similarly based on smaller tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Grant
http://www.brusselspictures.com/wp-content/photos/WWI-tanks/Frenvh-light-tank-FT-17.jpg
http://www.aaftankmuseum.com/PR10.jpg

If you look at the Leman Russ as an over sized light tank or tankette its proportions make sense. Obviously it doesn't work for what its suppose to be, a main battle tank. I think there are aspects of the leman russ that work others that don't.

There are instances of modern tanks with enclosed tracks:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Turquie/vehicules_lourds/MBT_New/Turkish_GIAT_MBT.jpg

Sponsons have been replaced with machine guns being mounted on top of the turret and secondary weapons being mounted coaxially (1 large cannon, 1 heavy machine gun, 2 light machine guns):
http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/15009/wm/pd640492.jpg

Even the bolt on the armor could be explained on a leman russ... modular armor (big image):
http://www.psm-spz.com/downloads/puma_3_gr.jpg

Take those characteristics into consideration and you can more easily attempt to portray a Leman Russ as modern or futuristic.

Banesword wrote:Check this one:

http://www.heavy-support.com/

There is a guy over at Warseer who is building these, I´ll see if can remember where...

I've seen those. The thing is definitely going in the direction of the Forge World models. While it shows directions a leman russ could be taken it doesn't address some of the height issues.

Modern tanks are about 1 1/4 the height of a human (8ft) but with the leman russ we have a tank that stands 2 1/4 times the height of a human (14ft) an extra 6ft:
http://www.weetoysoldiers.com/compare3/2007-04-23_DR_23235_UNA-with-Leman-Russ-front-side-view.jpg

All the super heavies are even taller.

Banesword wrote:Check this one:

http://www.heavy-support.com/

There is a guy over at Warseer who is building these, I´ll see if can remember were...

€54,50 (including 19 % tax) <-- That price is very insane. So is the tax % so is using , not . makes it look like its also €54,500

The Leman Russ is based off of WWI tanks. Hence the sponson turrets and hte 360 degree exposed tracks. Slap a turret on this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/British_Mark_V-star_Tank.jpg

and you basically have a Leman Russ.

The Mk1-Mk5 british tanks are more the basis for the Land raider than the leman russ.

This is a leman russ... (minus the sponsons, shortened body and chassis flipped around): http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SCqt6rtsjyI/AAAAAAAAL4M/nJ1341kNMpU/s400/6.jpg

Even this is closer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberdean_proving_grounds_023.JPG

Land raider factory?: http://historyofoldbury.co.uk/images/2140%20-%20TANKS%20BEING%20BUILT%20AT%20CARRIAGE%20WORKS%20reduced.gif

Yes, the Russ takes features from the M3 Lee/Grant and the Char B1, but I always thought that if there was ever one primary basis it would have to be the (fictional) tank from the Last Crusade. Shorten this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/LastCrusadeTank.jpg

Also, this is like the third thread on the Russ/all IG tanks within the past few weeks.

Here's my take on the Leman Russ, taking design cues from the Char B1 and British WW1 tanks. For ease-of-construction reasons, I deciced not to ive mine a proper suspension either, but did go for exposed drive sprockets (a colossal pain in the neck to build)



More pics here: http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s319/agamemnon667/Unnamed%20Tank%20Project/

Understand, this post is about a functional issue with GW vehicle designs for imperial tanks, not a cosmetic one.

The IMPERIAL tank designs do not have road wheels or toothed drive wheels (these connect to a motor). Also the armor plates go nearly to the edges of the track. Imperial tanks would get stuck driving over a curb, and the armor that comes within a track thickness of the roadsurfaces would be completley destroyed. Also, as they are shown, they would get high centered and stuck in mud easily and changing a road wheel or a thrown track would be nearly immpossible.

They are attrocius, comical designs and the:

Land Raider
Leman Russ
Chimera

All need to be corrected, for even the most basic functionality.

I like option one in the above posts.

I am begining to think most 40k players (and especially designers) don't know (or care?) how tanks really work, so I grabbed some pictures to demonstrate it. The style of armor on imperial tanks would be like modeling guns with no action, or amo, completley unworkable, despite whatever other cosmetics or nice lines, they might have. I do not think the Leman Russ et. al. hull shape should change cosmeticly, however the tracks need to get corrected, they need to have some clearance from the armor. I will demonstrate this in the attached issues that show an M113, a common afv design close to a rhino/chimera (road wheels), and M3 Grant which is arguable the source design (or very similar) for the Leman Russ (to show boagies) and a Panzer 4 (for proper side clearance armor) as well.

Note all 3 examples here have road wheels, toothed drive wheels, and adequate clearance to traverse obstacles, which is what the GW designs need. The rhino is actaully close.

Also see the wikipedia page for the Leman Russ originator M3 (Leman Russ) design here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M3Grant.jpg

Personally I'm ok with the nonsensical style of the Russ, I just think the model needs to be updated with more detail. The sponsons and hull weapon option look REALLY stupid, and the back engine area could stand to have more details to it.

Oh and the turret is just absurdly stupid. It looks like the new kit (from the drawings in the Codex) will fix this problem, at least.

The hull, while tall, seems a little thin. It could probably use some beefing out. They always feel so tiny next to my Chimeras, or around Rhinos.

Augustus wrote:I am begining to think most 40k players (and especially designers) don't know (or care?) how tanks really work, so I grabbed some pictures to demonstrate it. The style of armor on imperial tanks would be like modeling guns with no action, or amo, completley unworkable, despite whatever other cosmetics or nice lines, they might have.

I suspect you might be right re: the average player. I've put together enough model tanks (from KV-2 to Pz1 and from a Tiger to a Maus) to know what the bare minimum is for a workable suspension system is, and my design, while in my mind a better one than the GW original, still cannot meet that. This is something of a conscrious choice. Scratchbuilding the 10-20 road wheels and bogies or torsion bars necessary to make a workable suspension would, with my skill level, triple the build time for every project, and render several of them altogether impossible.

My design above fixes some of the problems of the stock chassis (poor trench crossing ability, no visible sprockets) while leaving others unaffected (large target, slab sides, poor hull gun position, etc.). If I had my druthers, I'd build something more akin to a Churchill or Char B1, with small road wheels partially hidden behind the side armor, with individual suspension. It'd go well with the general IG trench-warfare aesthetic.

I personally love the russ.

The only things I dont like are fixed by FW turrets and mars alpha bodies:

1. The big ol box the lascannon pokes out of.

2. The kids toy look of the battlecannon.

Nerf_IG wrote:Yes, the Russ takes features from the M3 Lee/Grant and the Char B1, but I always thought that if there was ever one primary basis it would have to be the (fictional) tank from the Last Crusade. Shorten this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/LastCrusadeTank.jpg

Also, this is like the third thread on the Russ/all IG tanks within the past few weeks.

Thats true, but this is all still fun and thats what this forums about. The Indiana Jones tank is Mark VIII with a turret hollywood added, if I'm not mistaken.

Augustus wrote:Understand, this post is about a functional issue with GW vehicle designs for imperial tanks, not a cosmetic one.

The IMPERIAL tank designs do not have road wheels or toothed drive wheels (these connect to a motor). Also the armor plates go nearly to the edges of the track. Imperial tanks would get stuck driving over a curb, and the armor that comes within a track thickness of the roadsurfaces would be completley destroyed. Also, as they are shown, they would get high centered and stuck in mud easily and changing a road wheel or a thrown track would be nearly immpossible.
...

This assumes an equal mix of modern/future/past technologies... it being sci-fi there are explanations. First we should put aside the idea that these models are meant to be as high detailed as scaled tank models, cause its simply not the case. That said maybe the tanks use magnetic locking tracks, that utilize a large magnetic field on one or several wheels to rotate the tracks. Maybe the the suspension is a an active suspension that can raise or lower the profile of the tank to help manage with terrain (something being worked on now). Or maybe its an antiquated (even by todays standards) iron box that can barely crawl over any terrain at all and just sucks as a tank, indicating why marine utilize the tanks they do.

Augustus wrote:
I am begining to think most 40k players (and especially designers) don't know (or care?) how tanks really work, so I grabbed some pictures to demonstrate it. The style of armor on imperial tanks would be like modeling guns with no action, or amo, completley unworkable, despite whatever other cosmetics or nice lines, they might have. I do not think the Leman Russ et. al. hull shape should change cosmeticly, however the tracks need to get corrected, they need to have some clearance from the armor. I will demonstrate this in the attached issues that show an M113, a common afv design close to a rhino/chimera (road wheels), and M3 Grant which is arguable the source design (or very similar) for the Leman Russ (to show boagies) and a Panzer 4 (for proper side clearance armor) as well.

I'm beginning to think some people got into 40k for the reality and not the fantasy of it. These tanks are as much a characterization of a tank as a space marine is of an 8ft tall super soldier. The proportions are mangled and while some would like to see a true scale, true proportioned marine a tank isn't likely till the infantry is done that way.

I don't disagree with your critique, I really don't, but I believe your threshold for your demands on the realism are beyond what 40k or Games Workshop are about. The rhinos clearance actually is appropriate. The things you'd like to see are definitely things I'd like to see, but they should retain the spirited caricature that makes it 40k. Shifting the threshold of the reality of GW's models is different from demanding reality, that is ultimately my point. I understand you want a higher degree of "function" built into the model.

One reason I started this thread separate from other ones was to hear ideas and perspectives on different interpretation of what a Leman Russ should be, your inputs been appreciated. Right now I'm strongly considering taking my time and effort, combined with my engineering and 3D CAD expertise and modeling and using it to develop an add on kit for the basic Russ to make it a bit more what people want. I'll admit I'm quite disappointed GW is only taking a minimalist approach to modifying the Leman Russ. I like happy gamers. This is the direction I'm moving toward.

This is kinda to the real tank what the leman russ model is to a "real life" leman russ.

http://www.rocketanimation.com/images/tiger2_porsche_turret_bw_72dpi.jpg

Just showing even as a caricature we can have expectations of a fantasy grounded in reality.

I'd like so see a bigger turret and the hull top surface needs to be "bigger" and or wider.
The Las Cannon and Heavy Bolter could easily be updated to the newer mould version, which would be a big improvement.
Wider tracks would be quite good too.

my general thoughts

Well written, love to see what you create one day!

aka_mythos wrote:I don't disagree with your critique, I really don't, but I believe your threshold for your demands on the realism are beyond what 40k or Games Workshop are about.

You absolutely have me there.

I have to remind myself at times, it's a ficticious universe (possibly for 12 year olds?) where people can climb on tanks and beat them till they explode, where troops with guns carry big swords and mutant creatures are more durable than warmachines...

In a comic world can one really argue these things? Not really, there could be any explanation, and it doesn't matter because it is all fake.

My most satisfying artwork and fictions tend to be created from the plausible perspective first and the "magic' perspective second.

One reason why I really hate the entire demon army... but, that's another story...

aka_mythos wrote:In general, what do you all see as flaws and issues with the leman russ battle tank model?

I'm going to start here, as it basically will feed into the rest of the commentary.
- too small footprint - should have similar footprint to Land Raider, and similar overall bulk
- narrow track is for a medium cruiser, not a "Lumbering Behemoth"
- Sponsons and hull guns are clumsy and aged poorly
- Turret is undersize and badly-lid out
- gun barrels are ridiculously oversized.

The current model has huge problems that require a major redesign. Turret is much too high for such a narrow tank. Sponsons are goofy, and make thing design worse.


With the heavy limitations of the current kit, I re-concepted the Russ as a SPG:
- http://public.fotki.com/JHwang/40k/ig/ig_tanks-1.html


A new design should match the Baneblade in style and minor details, to carry the family forward.

aka_mythos wrote:Some have even gone to the length of creating garage kits:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/28282-Imperial%20Guard%2C%20Leman%20Russ.html?w=600

This is just wierd, and won't cut it at all. It's a good conversion job, and a very solid effort, but it's not a canonical Leman Russ by any stretch. Perhaps if the maker had reversed the main hull to retain the heavy slope at the rear, it'd be a better fit.

aka_mythos wrote:
- http://k43.pbase.com/u9/blitzjaeger/upload/34903525.DSC00063.JPG

Hahaha, this isn't even close. It's a find AdMech thing, but not a Russ.

aka_mythos wrote:
- http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee25/CaiLeonas/M-24VariantActionIII.jpg

"M-24" - 1950s / Vietnam era light tanks are poor inspiration for something that is to be a Leman Russ.

aka_mythos wrote:
- http://www.battlegroup.net/blog/?page_id=11

"M-41" - see above. Too light.

aka_mythos wrote:
- http://img15.picoodle.com/img/img15/3/3/25/colgravis/f_LRtestbuildm_10bf38d.jpg

"Baneblade-style" - I really like this, and could see GW building something like this. It's big and chunky, with wide tracks, and a strong family resemblence. The Hull HB & Sponsons match the Baneblade, without the turret, bringing the profile closer in line with other Russes. The Turret is nicely-sized, neither too big, nor too narrow. Single Fuel Tanks are a nice touch to carry the family linkage over, while reinforcing the this is smaller than the Baneblade. Really, it's a very impressive accomplishment.

Augustus wrote:Understand, this post is about a functional issue with GW vehicle designs for imperial tanks, not a cosmetic one.

When we look at newer tanks (new Land Raider, new Rhino, new Baneblade), GW is making clear efforts to inject a little realism into the designs. They're still not good, but they're less implausible. I'd expect a new Leman Russ to have similar efforts.

With respect to drive wheels, I like to believe that GW uses internal drive teeth, like on any Caterpillar Tractor.

Similarly, they don't *have* to use torsion bar suspension, even though it's the most compact. There needs to be some concept of ground clearance and articulation for any Tank to move at a moderate pace. But then, the Leman Russ is slower than a typical tank, only going d6+6" flat out, rather than a full 12". So the reduced / missing suspension is reflected in the tank, being limited to infantry ground speed (conveniently d6+6" running). It's actually one of the few rules that makes sense for the model.

Current tank is painful to the eyes. An updated version that keeps with the overall shape and feel, similar to what GW did with the rhino, predator and vindicator would be greatly enjoyed by many eyeballs.

I rather like the blocky, cumbersome look. It represents the 'lumbering behemoth' rule quite well. Besides, when is the Imperium going to have the time to make a new variant of a tank that works fine as is?

The Leman Russ should stay chunky and clumsy. Updating it to a more 'modern' look goes against everything else in the fluff. Why don't Space Marines have huge lasers? Why do IG have piddly little flashlights? Because the Imperium is supposed to be gritty and crude, not all flashy and high-tech.

And what about people like H.B.M.C who have something like twenty of them? People like that probably don't want a new design.

It seems to me that most of the people who want a total redesign of the model are younger gamers who grew up with images of tanks from modern times. I'm a younger gamer, and I like my modern tanks, but redesigning it goes against tradition. Just like GW's obscene prices and outdated codecies, the Russ is here to stay.

...redesigning it goes against tradition

Oh really Cheese?

Perhaps you don't remember the old rhino hull, and the predator, and the vindicator, and the land raider, and the landspeeder (like 4 times), and the reaver Titan, the Warhound, and the imperial jetbike, and the carnifex and the...

Time will tell.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Whilst the kit might well benefit from an upgrade, this should follow the model presented by the rhino, ie that whilst the kit increases in size, gets additional detail and sprues full of extra bitz, no change should occur to the overall aesthetic of the Leman Russ.

The Leman Russ, like the Rhino, the devilfish bodyshape, the falcon bodyshape, is now iconic of the army type.

It should look antiquated rather than modernised, the entire Imperium is trapped in a downward spiraling dark age, losing it's technology and the ability to create as knowledge and worlds are lost.

New kit fine, new look not fine.

wouldn't the chimera body, be the iconic guard vehicle shape?

Augustus! Shame. A Leman Russ won't get stuck on a curb or in the mud, and you should know why.

The power of the machine spirit will see it through! All praise the Omnissiah!! Wooo!

(I'm kidding, of course.)

One thing to consider about the Leman Russ is its footprint on the tabletop. It's not designed to take up as much real estate as a Land Raider, and most of the methods of "modernising" it would result in this. Now, exposing some of the wheels would not do this, and GW could always put some plates of "floating" armor over the bottom portion of the track that moves, but I have a feeling that this will always be overlooked. I think that the best thing to do would be to re-jigger some of the proportions like they did on the Rhino resculpt to make a slightly more aesthetically pleasing model, and I think that drawing from a Victorian Steampunk inspiration would not be a bad way to go in this case.

I don't mind the current Russ, although the turret is much to small. It looks suitibly archaic as an ancient design that hasn't been changed in mellenia should.

But...

A redesign to make it look more like a baby baneblade would be perfect IMHO, really tie the kits together like they did with the rhino and land raider.

@Iorek: How big is new Land Raider's footprint compared the old Land Raiders? I think the new one takes up more space.

And certainly, the FW Baneblade is clearly larger than the Armorcast, which I believe to be a tad larger than the DIY templates.

But embiggening the Leman Russ isn't a bad thing. It'll look much better on the board. And as it'll be plastic, we'll be stuck with it for quite a while.

Honestly I think a redesign could be better than a baby baneblade.

The relative size of the Leman Russ to a guardsmen makes the hull length 21ft long and 12ft wide (no sponson) as opposed to:
Abrams: 26ft by 12ft
Merkava: 25ft by 12.2ft
Leclerc: 22.5ft by12.2ft
Challenger 2: 27ft by 11.6ft

The models length would change between .2 in (5mm) and 1.1 in (28mm) depending on how large a battle tank the leman russ is meant to be relative to modern tanks.

Overall I think foot print is less of a problem than height and turret size.

Someones doodle... interesting:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/leman%20russ%20drawing/TheMuffinKing/Tanks1/001.jpg

My concept of a reworked russ...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30148-.html

I think that the old Leman Russ design is legendary.. it is one of those few models that has stood the test of GW history and still makes it's way across countless gamers tabletops. (It's like the genestealer model, why f*&k with something that is already perfect?)

But, saying that, I do recommend they update the cannon and the front sponson. Even though they do represent technology that would be a few millenia old look at the baneblade it is old too but doesn't have a goofy cannon.

It could definately benefit from a good ol' spruce up, from engine detail to overall details, IMHO that is all it needs.

See, the problem here is that you're all thinking rationally. The Russ does not need to be redesigned, for one crucial reason.

It looks cool.

Admit it. It does. And GW won't give a rat's rear-quarters about functionality. They don't care whether or not their fictional tank design could clear a trench or make it over obstacles, because it won't ever have to!

It's a tiny plastic tank, for crap's sakes!!! IT DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK, IT JUST HAS TO LOOK GOOD.

And it does. This brings up a much more important point. GW follows "the Rule of Cool", and functionality and efficient design are the furthest things from their mind.

It looks cool.

I think it looks ridiculous and stupid, and I have since I was 12. Given that half of this thread thinks it looks god awful I'm not sure the rule of cool argument is going to suffice. Sometimes people think functional looking things are cool.

It looked stupid and ridiculous to me when i first saw it, but then i saw a whole IG tank division painted so awesomely it rivalled chuck norris' beard.

So I became totally turned around on the subject.

It's cool.

Wow, I can still remember when the Russ first came out - we thought it was so wonderful (and compared to GW's only other tank kits at the time, the ancient rhino and land raider, it _was_ wonderderful )

Personally I'd be happy to see a 'baby baneblade' - a lower wider longer Russ in the general style of a baneblade. But if GW has just spent money recutting the existing sprues, I guess that pushes a potential full redesign further down the wishlist for GW themselves...

Still, IG is popular enough to justify regularly udated codexes (unlike certain armies that shall remain namless), so at some point the GW accountants may well decide they'd sell a zillion redesigned Russes.

I said this in another, similar thread but I like the Leman Russ look, I think it is very distinctive, even if a bit dated looking.

Of course I wouldn't mind if it was redesigned with a more modern look that takes into account better tank tech but I hope they don't dull it down like the Land Raider. The old Land Raider was very distinctive and the new one now looks kind of like a large Rhino. I'd hate to see that happen to the Russ.

@aka:

While GW probably could do better than the scratchbuild, out of everything that's popped up, that's easily the best-looking thing that I've seen in a while that is even close to the Leman Russ artwork that has been displayed since the Russ debut in 2E.

The problem is 40k tanks are squared off relative to modern tanks. That is, they are proportionally much wider (and taller) than what one finds in reality.

The basic Russ is woefully undersized at 5" long x 3" wide, like a Chimera. A Land Raider is 7" long x 4" wide (no sponsons). Even if the sponsonless Russ were bumped to 6" x 3.5", that'd be a huge improvement

Also, you're using a 4' per inch model scale, and that doesn't seem right when you consider the height of a SM model. SM are supposed to be 8' tall, and they're not 2" models like we have with 1/35 scale models or Inquisitor models.

aka_mythos wrote:
Someones doodle... interesting:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/leman%20russ%20drawing/TheMuffinKing/Tanks1/001.jpg

My concept of a reworked russ...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30148-.html

Hmm... Apparently you like huge, oversized turrets, like the M-1.
____

Sicarious85 wrote:I think that the old Leman Russ design is legendary..

It's only fielded because IG players have no choice in the matter as to what their Russ looks like.

Just like the Defiler. The model can be seriously flawed, but if that's the model, then that's what people will field.

And because people are inherently lazy, conversions are a rarity.

Yes, people can buy FW. But because FW charges so much, and the design isn't *that* different, there's not much valuable data here.

But to conclude that people actively like the current Russ design, when there are no signficant alternatives easily available, that's going too far.

____

Brother Captain Andrecus wrote:It looks cool.

IT JUST HAS TO LOOK GOOD.

In that case, it fails completely. The current model looks like horrible.
____

Clang wrote:Personally I'd be happy to see a 'baby baneblade'

But if GW has just spent money recutting the existing sprues, I guess that pushes a potential full redesign further down the wishlist for GW themselves...

Still, IG is popular enough to justify regularly udated codexes (unlike certain armies that shall remain namless), so at some point the GW accountants may well decide they'd sell a zillion redesigned Russes.

As the various conversions and concepts show, GW actually could do a *lot* worse than a baby Baneblade.

I really hope we get a redesign. That kit is so dated, it's embarrassing.

If GW has the current Russ soldier on through the end of 5th, we're probably stuck with it forever.

I don't mind the current russ design too much but if there were a redesign I would prefer it not pick up too much future tech and lose too many rivets. So far the baby baneblade strikes me as the most agreeable, but what about something malcador sized with wider tracks? Malcador/Russ comparison for your convenience: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20Guard/Krieg/tanks/Malcador/malc6.jpg

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem is 40k tanks are squared off relative to modern tanks. That is, they are proportionally much wider (and taller) than what one finds in reality.

The basic Russ is woefully undersized at 5" long x 3" wide, like a Chimera. Even if the sponsonless Russ were bumped to 6" x 3.5", that'd be a huge improvement

Also, you're using a 4' per inch model scale, and that doesn't seem right when you consider the height of a SM model. SM are supposed to be 8' tall, and they're not 2" models like we have with 1/35 scale models or Inquisitor models.

Actually I went 28mm = 6ft or about 4.6mm=1ft. I used a guardsmen from when the kit was first made for comparison. A leman russ would come to 21' long 12' wide (without sponsons). If a leman russ is too wide its because of those sponsons and not the general scale of it. As a modern tank it certainly is too tall, but a modern tank doesn't have sponsons so it can get away with that. I made a post earlier about that. One could make the argument that the scale is out of wack because they infantry models have changed, but that isn't what you've said.

Bringing the leman russ upto 6"adds about 12ft to the real life length making it 33ft long. Despite showing that its reasonable for a main battle tank to be in the low twenties of feet long. I said it before the foot print of modern battle tanks are like these:
Abrams: 26ft by 12ft
Merkava: 25ft by 12.2ft
Leclerc: 22.5ft by12.2ft
Challenger 2: 27ft by 11.6ft

Leman Russ: 21ft by 12ft

Thus a Leman Russ model only needs to be .2 in (5mm) to 1.1 in (28mm) larger depending on how large a battle tank the leman russ is meant to be relative to modern tanks. Not the almost 54mm your talking about.

The turret on my drawing was intended to be more reminiscent of a King Tiger than an Abrams, but it was just something I whipped together to show how aspects of the aesthetic could be stretched into a more modern look. Personally I like the more dome like turrets of the T55 through T72, but that isn't what the leman russ is about.

Clang wrote:Wow, I can still remember when the Russ first came out - we thought it was so wonderful (and compared to GW's only other tank kits at the time, the ancient rhino and land raider, it _was_ wonderderful )

Same, I remember flipping through the black and white catalog that had the "Coming Soon!" pic of the Leman Russ Tank and just below it an Eldar Jetbike.

made me want to switch to Imperial Guard.

realism has no place in wh40k, and i like the Leman Russ as it is, i would love it if they kept the same overall design/shape and just changed a few details and made a full range of plastic weapon options.

even having said that i still want to buy a couple of Leman Russ tanks just to own. $$$$ is always the limiting factor.

I think realism has a place so long as it doesn't push too much of the fantasy aside. Wanting a tank to be roughly the appropriate size, that fine. Wanting an imperial guard tank to represent modern notions of tank design probably go too far. There is something in the middle. Just people who want 40k to be more than 40k in the realism department are going to be disappointed. 40k tanks are not intended to be anywhere near the realm of realism scale model tanks attempt to achieve.

My version didn't actually end up any more "realistic" than the OOB Russ, it just sucks in a different way.

@Agamemnon2.
i like the way it looks. it can look great when done.
looks like you worked hard on it.

Aga, add rivetsX1000000000 and that will look Great!

I have to agree that since it's the only design in tanks for IG then we're stuck with it until GW decides to revamp the design.

While I personally don't like the design, I don't hate it either. However, I do like the game. One day, the powers in charge of GW may say "hey, let's try something a little cooler and less cartoony". Then they may just roll over and go back to sleep... or they can design something that looks nicer. Heck, FW does it already. One can only hope (sigh).

I like the design and the character. Somehow it's pleasing to the eye. The only thing I don't like is the flat bottom of the turret, only noticed today but from a low perspective it looks wrong. I always use the turret boxes, the turret is too small without, however I wouldn't want it much bigger than the curret with boxes.

Things however I would like would be to see it get the 'rhino' treatment. Not so much that the old ones go out of date (poor sods on here have lots of the things!). I'd like the side armour to be in sections so that the tracks could be enclosed as now, or have them open like the rhino. Cannon could be improved, as could the sponson and engine/exhust details. I DO NOT want a new look. I like the current look as it is. Also I don't want a 'mini baneblade'. The Baneblade is it's own iconic tank and look, and while I don't mind others inspired by russess/blades (malcador etc) I feel that the Russ look should stay. It's 40K, not reality. Look at any of the tanks kits - none of them would ever work in real life, neither should the Russ. If it bugs people that much then play historical wargames instead. But as i said I have no gripe with a few modifications to the kit to give the option of making it look a little more 'real'.

While they're at it the Chimera hull could do with the same treatment.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The current model looks like horrible.

Unfortunately for you GW would not radically redesign the LR at this point for many reasons. It has been around for a long time, its image has been shown as it is in comics, games, books, etc. The new guard book too, of course.
The LR is not going to get re-designed. No offense to anyone who has converted a LR in this thread, but I prefer the current model to all the alternatives proposed so far. Just add some details and it's fine.

kharndude wrote:@Agamemnon2.
i like the way it looks. it can look great when done.
looks like you worked hard on it.

Thank you, and yes, I did. I've already inquired after some rivets from my local model shop, hopefully I can get some 1/35 plastic or resin ones, I do not fancy making my own en masse, especially the domed sort. Some parts will also get some larger rivets and other detail.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It looks cool.

I think it looks ridiculous and stupid, and I have since I was 12. Given that half of this thread thinks it looks god awful I'm not sure the rule of cool argument is going to suffice. Sometimes people think functional looking things are cool.

When Shuma, JohnnyHwang, and I agree on something, thar be evil afoot. I have 6-10 of the puppies laying around (I've lost count), but they are hideously ugly as presented. Actually you could keep the iconic image with in line with fluff and previous pictures with just small modifications. Even just a tweeked turrent and a cut to show some of the wheels would be an improvement. If you have to have sponsons, fix that look as well

I myself wouldnt mind seeing a tank that is a little easier to transport. When transporting my Russ' I have to watch the size of box I put it in otherwise the gunner on top has his arms break off (I stopped regluing them at this point)

That said, I think the Leman Russ is iconic of the IG and I would be ashamed if they changed it from what it is to something worse or undeserving of surpassing this "legend"

How would you feel about a redesigned turrent only, more akin to a vanquisher turrent?

This is my attempt from a few years ago. I went for the small baneblade look, widened the turret and reversed the hull. I still wanted it to be recognisable as a russ, but a little less, erm, WMC looking. And one of these days I'll finish it



More photos on my site if you're interested.

That's a nice design, Si. I would have gone for a more prominent driver's compartment myself, but yours is a very good effort nonetheless.

Screw the antiquated stuff. Slap side sponsons and a front sponson on this bad boy and give me some sleekness. ;-)

I couldnt care less about the style of any of the tanks (as an ork player I dont really have this issue...I think a lot of really good points have been made however.

My biggest beef with the tank is rather straight forward the tank treads on the rhino are a big enough pain to get put together let alone what I have seen as far as chimera and I assume (since i havent seen the tracks for it) the russ.

So i think the tracks themselves need to be set more like the rhino at least where certain sections are all one piece instead of this lookee theres 8 billion track parts just to get htis thing together wheee

In a previous post I broke down the basic way a person could do a "modern" Leman Russ. The simple fact is that a modern battle tank would never have sponsons ever, all the complaints of a leman russes high profile ultimately stem from the fact that it needs arching sides to mount sponsons. Modern tanks get around that need by mounting the weapons that would other wise be in sponsons into a position coaxial to the main cannon, as well as as on the multiple weapons mounted atop the turret. There is a strong enough parallel; a Abrams tank will have a main cannon and a machine gun, with two optional machine guns, a Leman Russ has a battle cannon, a heavy bolter, and two optional heavy bolters.
Leman Russes have only a slightly smaller foot print but just as much mass.

Aside from that any design will always look antiquated without adequately redesigned sponsons. Anyone out there have a good idea for designing "modern" sponsons?

Gaznab wrote:I couldnt care less about the style of any of the tanks (as an ork player I dont really have this issue...I think a lot of really good points have been made however.

My biggest beef with the tank is rather straight forward the tank treads on the rhino are a big enough pain to get put together let alone what I have seen as far as chimera and I assume (since i havent seen the tracks for it) the russ.

So i think the tracks themselves need to be set more like the rhino at least where certain sections are all one piece instead of this lookee theres 8 billion track parts just to get htis thing together wheee

A Russ is just like the chimera, but even the rhino is similar to those. The rhino only has it simpler because its wheels are fixed to the chassis and half of its tracks are covered by the hull and thus aren't provided. The IG tank wheels are both a blessing and a curse, they allow alot of flexibility as far as customizing but are pain at times.

Frazzled wrote:When Shuma, JohnnyHwang, and I agree on something, thar be evil afoot.

If HBMC comes in here and agrees as well, I think that's the fifth sign of the Apocalypse. Or the fifth Apocalypse book, I forget which.

If the turret was 'biggerized' and the guns 'smallerized', it'd look a lot better. Sure, the tracks still might not work, but I could live with those changes. The turret is way to small and it compensates by having a lascannon and battlecannon that are giant. It'd keep the overall look of the tank. Don't be surprised if the new LR kit looks a lot like a FW model that they copied, since GW is pretty big on that right now.

In a previous post I broke down the basic way a person could do a "modern" Leman Russ. The simple fact is that a modern battle tank would never have sponsons ever, all the complaints of a leman russes high profile ultimately stem from the fact that it needs arching sides to mount sponsons. Modern tanks get around that need by mounting the weapons that would other wise be in sponsons into a position coaxial to the main cannon, as well as as on the multiple weapons mounted atop the turret. There is a strong enough parallel; a Abrams tank will have a main cannon and a machine gun, with two optional machine guns, a Leman Russ has a battle cannon, a heavy bolter, and two optional heavy bolters.

Aside from that any design will always look antiquated without adequately redesigned sponsons. Anyone out there have a good idea for designing "modern" sponsons?

Sponsons have no functional purpose in combat, are difficult to man, compromise the integrity of the vehicle, provide an easily damaged non redundant system, and reduce the tanks ability to run through things (like forests).

Sponsons have NEVER been a good idea. For sponsons to look good the tank would have to be a totally bizarre design like the land raider. About the only way the russ could make it workable would be tinyturrets below the rotation arc of the main gun. Still inside of the tanks footprint rather than expanding it.

Your version is my favorite Si. bulky , tough looking , with big cannon ( trait mark of LR? dunno )

ShumaGorath wrote:

In a previous post I broke down the basic way a person could do a "modern" Leman Russ. The simple fact is that a modern battle tank would never have sponsons ever, all the complaints of a leman russes high profile ultimately stem from the fact that it needs arching sides to mount sponsons. Modern tanks get around that need by mounting the weapons that would other wise be in sponsons into a position coaxial to the main cannon, as well as as on the multiple weapons mounted atop the turret. There is a strong enough parallel; a Abrams tank will have a main cannon and a machine gun, with two optional machine guns, a Leman Russ has a battle cannon, a heavy bolter, and two optional heavy bolters.

Sponsons have no functional purpose in combat, are difficult to man, compromise the integrity of the vehicle, provide an easily damaged non redundant system, and reduce the tanks ability to run through things (like forests).

Sponsons have NEVER been a good idea.

Yes... thats true. The critical thing to walk away with is that tanks continue to need the type of suppression fire that sponsons were created originally to provide and that is why we continue to mount weapons comparable to what was mounted in sponsons back in WWI. We just mount them in a more tactically flexible location, on top of the turret or as an alternate weapon in alignment with the main weapon.

Sponsons have a functional purpose, they just don't succeed at it, it is an attempt to provide suppressing fire from a protected position. They were a good idea at a time when they had limited options and limited assets, they just could not be executed well. So in a science fiction setting, we should be able to come up with ways to improve them.

You point out a couple of weaknesses to the concept of sponsons.
1) difficult to man
2) compromise the vehicles integrity
3) easily damaged
4) non-redundant
5) reduces mobility

With "4" I don't think this is a real issue, no weapon system even on modern tanks are "redundant", redundancy comes from having multiple expendable systems. By its nature a sponson or even a cupola mounted machine gun provides the over all vehicle with redundancy. That even if a main weapon fails, the vehicle still has offensive and defensive firepower, even if limited.

With "3" given modern technology a sponson would be no more easily damaged than any other hard point on a tank, it would be only as vulnerable as where the main cannon mounts to a turret.

With "5" the reduction of mobility only applies to the style of sponsons that the Leman Russ is currently mounted with; there were other types of sponson type weapon mounts. If updated such a system could be used. Even amongst other 40k models we can see less various examples of sponsons, few as vulnerable as a Leman Russ'

In a universe with servitors, machine spirits, and other advance technology "1" becomes less of an immediate problem. And when it comes to "2" it once again becomes a matter of the technology of the setting. Predators have sponsons and their armor value goes up, so obviously in the 40k universe such a system only adds armor to the exterior of a vehicle and improving its survivability.

I think something like this:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30304-.html

A retractable looking, fully armored ball turret of sorts. By being seemingly retractable it can to a degree limit the amount of impact on "5". By being retractable and fully armored, "3" is marginalized as an issue. By seemingly being a retrofit to the external superstructure, modular and separate from the chassis it doesn't contribute to "2" beyond wiring connections. The remote operated nature of the sponsons also makes "1" moot.

While these may seem a forced explanation the simple fact is given sufficiently advanced technology it would be possible. 40k is a bit of mix and match anachronism of high and low tech making it possible.

I just saw this... thought I'd point it out to anyone too lazy to look down at the rest of the Painting and Modeling section:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/238153.page#690017

With the exception of height and a suitable "sponson" solution... it seems to have incorporated solutions to some common complaints.

Hahah.. some of these guys take this way too far..

but others smack it right on the head.

aka_mythos wrote:I just saw this...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/238153.page#690017

With the exception of height and a suitable "sponson" solution... it seems to have incorporated solutions to some common complaints.

Wow, you really just love the Metal Slug cartoon tank look, eh?

Slapping a huge turret on top of the current undersized hull is all you need before you break out the polka-dot paint scheme.

I love metal slug tank , but by no means does it have anything to do with the turret size lol.

Itsthe tank design , most emphasized by the track shape. Makes the tank look almost like a feral beast.

John, you talk and talk, and yet you've yet to put up any sort of picture of what your ideal Leman Russ should look like. Do something beyond slamming people for proposing ideas for improvement. Please be more than a talking head.

I really don't get what you mean by over sized. Almost every major main battle tank currently used has similar turret to chassis proportions. I didn't make the thing I was just pointing out another instance of someone attempting to solve some of the issues with the Leman Russ model.

I liked his turret and I liked the way he tried to incorporate a more realistic suspension, but I still believe for the basic Russ the part of chassis where the tracks wrap around need to be reconceived. While the primary hull needs to be flattend, possibly lowered a bit.

Another approach could be to do something similar to the T-35; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35 ; or Vickers Independent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_A1E1_Independent
They attempted to solve the need for secondary weapons by mounting weapons similar to sponson weapons in 3 smaller secondary turrets, with a high large high profile turret positioned above them. Their primary short coming that lead to this design concepts demise was their weight; something the 40k universe has no issue ignoring from a practical stand point.

@ mythos:

There is one small problem imo when it comes to design new russes. To IG players , the russ is basically a gun platform that moves with LOTS of guns right?

If GW design something worthy to fit the description it'll dwarf the land raider :"< ( i hope i got that right not the other way around lol )

I understand the concern, but modern tanks have just as many guns and are only slightly larger foot prints than a Leman Russ would have in real life.

A leman russ would have 2 to 5 guns... a modern battle tank has 2-4 guns. Is it too much a stretch to try and figure out where to stick that last gun? As well as how they'll be mounted?

k This is what i want the Russ's shape to look like ( never mind that barrel lol )
If the barrel is trimmed and longer it'll be suitable imo.




let me emphasize this, just the shape!!!

*put put put put put

I think the weapon proportions for that heavy bolter might be an issue. It would have that upsized light tank feel with that design. The turret seems a bit bulky, it would seem a soldier could stand upright with in the turret. It seems to move in the conceptual direction of a Ragnarok Siege Tank. http://www.mechmaster.co.uk/cg-lair/40k/images/20060404a.jpg or http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/kv2lp_1.jpg

I want the sponson to be big in ratio with the turret and (er chasis = body? )

So basically heavy bolter would be smaller, but yes the sponson casing i want it that big xD

Also i like wide roundish tracks like this one

I think the scale of the weapons is what really makes the whole project difficult. On a real tank a weapon firing 12 guage shotgun slugs would not be a thick as a man's torso. Storm bolters look kind of silly silly mounted on a pintle because they are oddly large, and heavy bolters are ridiculously huge.

One thing that might work, and solves (sorta) two problems at once, would be mounting the sponsons to the side of the turret. Rules wise it would require some tweaking, but you would make the turret larger while pulling the sponsons inside the foot print. Cutting down the sponsons would also go a long way.

I don't really have the ability to sketch something out and post it at work, but I will see what I can do when I get home.

He has sponsons... sorta
http://www.uberreview.com/wp-content/uploads/terminator2tank1.jpg

I agree I think the miss-scale of 40k throw tanks into the position of requiring weapons to be extra large to look proportional.

aka_mythos wrote:John, you talk and talk, and yet you've yet to put up any sort of picture of what your ideal Leman Russ should look like.

Do something beyond slamming people for proposing ideas for improvement.

I really don't get what you mean by over sized.

Almost every major main battle tank currently used has similar turret to chassis proportions.

I didn't make the thing I was just pointing out another instance of someone attempting to solve some of the issues with the Leman Russ model.

I still believe for the basic Russ the part of chassis where the tracks wrap around need to be reconceived. While the primary hull needs to be flattend, possibly lowered a bit.

First off, I posted a link to the Baneblade-styled Russ conversion a couple weeks ago:



At the time, I noted that I would like smaller front idler wheels. And then, ITT, I reiterated that I liked that design, with minor changes:

"Baneblade-style" - I really like this, and could see GW building something like this. It's big and chunky, with wide tracks, and a strong family resemblence. The Hull HB & Sponsons match the Baneblade, without the turret, bringing the profile closer in line with other Russes. The Turret is nicely-sized, neither too big, nor too narrow. Single Fuel Tanks are a nice touch to carry the family linkage over, while reinforcing the this is smaller than the Baneblade. Really, it's a very impressive accomplishment.

As this captures the essence of what I would like to see, and I've said so more than once, I don't feel a need to doodle up anything else when I can simply re-link to the tank, again.


Secondly, as far as "slamming", where am I slamming anybody. If I say that the turret is too big and "cartoony", that's not a slam. It's a statement that the overall shape is too bulbous and toy-like in comparison to where GW is taking 40k "large" Tank designs per the updated Land Raider and all-new Baneblade / Shadosword / Stormlord. These new designs are fundamentally angular and flatter-profile, with considerable increases in length. They are moving away from the kiddie-proportioned things that you seem to be proposing. Now maybe you aren't familiar with children's toys, but I've go a bunch of them for my kid, and they're all "ballooned" out as tall, wide, and blobby, with minimal sharp corners or hard angles. Based on your examples, that is what you are advocating.

We have a fundamental disagreement on what a Russ should look like. You seem to think that a Russ should be 1990s+ style, whereas I want the Russ to match the Baneblade, which is closer to 1940s style. Modern MBTs are simply not consistent with the 40k design ethos, nor the most recent tanks, so they can be discarded. 40k is now finally approaching the 1940s, but like the 19,they still have sponsons and hull-mounted main guns (i.e. Shadowsword family) - we don't do that anymore. So modern stuff simply doesn't match, and injecting it into 40k is not going to work.

I didn't accuse you of making it, only liking it. If that was an error, I'm sorry.

Finally, I agree that the hull needs to be proportionally flattened, with a new (Baneblade-styled) suspension. It would be far less implausible.

@Luna: I like Metal Slug, too.

Just not in 40k.

Though, if Leman Russ can jump, I might reconsider.

_Si_ wrote:This is my attempt from a few years ago. I went for the small baneblade look, widened the turret and reversed the hull. I still wanted it to be recognisable as a russ, but a little less, erm, WMC looking. And one of these days I'll finish it



More photos on my site if you're interested.

Absolutely superb, fits the design of 40k, fits in with the IG models that exist, has a decent footprint, solves the road wheels issue, has the correct weapons, is reasonably scaled and modeled...

I salute you, that is completely outstanding.

I fear the work to reproduce it would be considerable, but I am inspired to try. Well done sir, exquisite!

Oh, I missed commenting on Si's version - that is actually very good. It's not quite as good as the Baneblade-styled one, but it's still very, very good. It's my "runner up" design among all of the things proposed.

The bulk and footprint are good, and the overall proportions are sufficiently Russ-like. Just the BB-version is a little better-done overall.

I apologize John. I misspoke. Even you must acknowledge how easy it is for some of us to get frustrated with you. I think sometimes you come off more harshly then you intend.

I understand what you're saying about visual cues. 90's vs. 40's vs earlier. I think sometimes I leave out part of my thoughts. One of the themes of my early posts in this thread was that most people want a shift toward more modern looking tanks. I also talked about some of the ways modern tanks have solved some of the issues that people have with WWI influenced design choices.

I think a 40's into 50's aesthetic would be appropriate for a Leman Russ redesign. I don't believe "modern" looking Russes would look all that good. For example this is a concept I did for a Soviet looking version: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30533-.html?w=600

I'm in favor of something that's one part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileanzerVI_TigerII_Porsche1.jpg
maybe one part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Char_T-34.jpg
with some appropriate way of mounting sponsons or analogs to sponsons. I generally favor the soviet aesthetic for a redesign. Partially cause IG are kinda space commies and partially because the Soviets held onto certain design aesthetics for longer which creates that juxtaposed look appropriate to the Imperium.

When I bring up modern tanks I'm mostly trying to point out aspects of modern design that would fit into the design of a leman russ, in an appropriate if not anachronistic way. My "modern" concepts were mostly attempting to narrow down what others where wanting of the Russ

With Si's tank I think a rework of the front chassis, where the driver sits and where the lascannon sit could really make things that much better. Overall pretty cool.

@Luna: that tank kinda reminds me of the "Centaur" from "Gears of War", not sure why. In the US there was a small remote controlled toy of it sold at Best Buys. It was pretty close to the right size to stand in for a Russ. You could simply get a couple and switch out the wheels for tracks and rework that lower part of its chassis which housed the batteries. It was something sold when Gears of War 2 came out; a couple months back one Best Buy had them going for $10, they were just trying to get rid of them.
http://www.bigsquidrc.com/pictures/gears/full/gears5.jpg

Thanks for all the kind words guys. As I say I did it a while back, but I keep meaning to finish it. If I did another it'd have land raider tracks just for simplicity's sake.

And in my defence, the mini-baneblade one was built by mousemuffins, so surely that's an unfair advantage?

Before I built it I made sure I photographed the two parts of the tracks next to a ruler, can make them available if anyone wants to have a dig. Build was really easy from what I remember, aside from messing around with tracks...

Si feel free to post your pictures hear. We are just discussing the different directions leman russ' can be taken and yours is a good example of one of the strongly supported concepts.

Seconded! Please do!

aka_mythos wrote:I apologize John. I misspoke. Even you must acknowledge how easy it is for some of us to get frustrated with you. I think sometimes you come off more harshly then you intend.

I understand what you're saying about visual cues. 90's vs. 40's vs earlier.

I think a 40's into 50's aesthetic would be appropriate for a Leman Russ redesign.

I'm in favor of something that's one part [King Tiger (Porsche turret)] & one part [Soviet T-34].

I generally favor the soviet aesthetic for a redesign. Partially cause IG are kinda space commies and partially because the Soviets held onto certain design aesthetics for longer which creates that juxtaposed look appropriate to the Imperium.

When I bring up modern tanks I'm mostly trying to point out aspects of modern design that would fit into the design of a leman russ, in an appropriate if not anachronistic way.

With Si's tank I think a rework of the front chassis, where the driver sits and where the lascannon sit could really make things that much better. Overall pretty cool.

@Aka: Any fault is almost certainly *far* more on me than you, so please, no apology. If could find a way to be less harsh, life would be better for everybody.

I very much appreciate your additional clarification. That was very helpful to me, and I assume others as well. Thank you!

With your preferences, I'm assuming that you like old bubble-top Predator, yes?

I see the Imperials as more Fascist than Communist, so the Soviet T-series bubble turrets don't work for me. For me, I'd actually rather field a skeletonized Razorback turret for my Preds, but I prefer the Vindicator over the Whirlwind over any turreted Pred. In general, I don't like large turrets on Imperial 40k vehicles - it's too modern, IMO. I'm basically only OK with the Chimera turret, because it's just a little nubbin.

I completely agree that Si's tank, the front end would need to be redone to match better, but it's still nothing to hold against him - it's just a side effect of trying to use existing Russ parts.

I think the best solution, so as not to change the "iconic" look of the russ while still taking away the cartoony factor would be to simply lengthen it by 1-1.5 inches and rework the turret. If the turret was moved back by .75 inches and made a little more low profile I think it would look a lot less ridiculous.

LunaHound wrote:I want the sponson to be big in ratio with the turret and (er chasis = body? )

So basically heavy bolter would be smaller, but yes the sponson casing i want it that big xD

Also i like wide roundish tracks like this one

I believe thats the mammoth from Command and Conquer: Tiberium Wars right?

I do like the roundish treads on it, and the turret style could in theory be worked onto the LR, as it would go more towards the back of the chasis and thus give the back some much needed detail.
The only problem is that at that point we start having it look almost exactly like a mini baneblade. Not that I dont approve, I think it would be kind of funny to have a baneblade in Apoc surrounded by mini baneblades

I like the look of the bladeruss but I am not shelling out 95 bucks for a russ when I can buy one for $40+-.
Then customize it how I want for a total of maybe $50.

The current Russ design is based off of a French WWII design. It had a smaller main gun and turret and a larger central turret. GW added the sponsons and altered the turret, and called it a day.

I would like to see something beefier in line with the mini-baneblades posted earlier in the thread, or a Halo-Scorpion style tank with side mounted guns as smaller turrets on the top center section.

Presumably, any new Russ would be $50 to match the Land Raider, but with extra guns like the Shadowsword.

Are ya'll saying a Russ should be as big as a Land Raider?

I think that's the general consensus.

Personally, I'd like to see an embiggened Russ tank.

A land raider is bigger because it's got to hold all those troops. If you make the russ just as big, then we'll need a bigger land raider. don't ya think?

GW is definitely going to hit us with a price increase on the new Russ.

John, I do like the old predator, probably more than I should for such a simple model. Sometime soon I am planning to build a modified russ with a better track system and turrets I'm snatching from some russian tanks. I'm working on my adeptus mechanicus count as IG army and I wanted to do 3 leman russ tanks to represent the original Leman Russ tank prototypes that the Adeptus mechanicus helped build for Leman Russ. I wanted them to have that feel of having been pieced together hastily with pre-existing technology, so I wanted a turret that was reminiscent of the original Predator. Give it the immediately identifiable feel that its from the same time.

Would you give comments on the t-34 esque concept I did? http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30533-.html?w=600
If (when) I ever do a second squadron I'm thinking something like this would be a possibility.

Nazis, Communist only difference is who they hate and who they blamed. At least the Nazis had Wagner.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think that's the general consensus.

Personally, I'd like to see an embiggened Russ tank.

I think land raider foot print at the most. Definitely not the height, you agree?

Yea!

Durandal wrote:The current Russ design is based off of a French WWII design. It had a smaller main gun and turret and a larger central turret. GW added the sponsons and altered the turret, and called it a day.

I would like to see something beefier in line with the mini-baneblades posted earlier in the thread, or a Halo-Scorpion style tank with side mounted guns as smaller turrets on the top center section.

You have stumbled upon something there i high lighted in bold.

I have absolutely nothing against them , but i know many americans do.
And i should use that as advantage and spread the word. hopefully when it gets bad enough
GW will consider changing the design asap :"D

Ironhide wrote:Are ya'll saying a Russ should be as big as a Land Raider?

That would be horrible, and not make any sense. The Leman Russ does not have to look big enough to transport 8 terminators or 16 marines. The Leman Russ just needs to hold 4 guardsmen. Making it as large as the Land Raider would be completely ridiculous.

Ironhide wrote:A land raider is bigger because it's got to hold all those troops. If you make the russ just as big, then we'll need a bigger land raider. don't ya think?

Well...
- A M1 Abrams MBT hull footprint is 26' x 12', for a total weight of nearly 70 tons
- A M2 Bradley IFV hull footprint is 22' x 12', for a total weight of roughly 30 tons

Ordnance-class Guns take up space!

So I can see a Russ being similar in footprint to a Land Raider. The Russ would have a shorter Hull, because the Turret makes up a bunch of height, but the overall volume would still be less.

____

aka_mythos wrote:John, I do like the old predator, probably more than I should for such a simple model.

Would you give comments on the t-34 esque concept I did? http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30533-.html?w=600

Nazis, Communist only difference is who they hate and who they blamed.

OK, no problem.

While not for me, that version is very Soviet-looking, but you need the rear fuel tanks to really sell it. The semi-exposed road wheels are a given at this point, as is the extended length. The rear deck is a bit "off", and the leading wheels should be more exposed. The sponson, of course, is problematic on your model due to the low skirt height - perhaps style after the Pred or Land Raider for better results?

Either way, they're consistent with the Imperium's Fluff themes.
____

aka_mythos wrote:I think land raider foot print at the most. Definitely not the height, you agree?

Total height including Turret? Probably about the same. Footprint might be inset on the hull, like the Baneblade and current Russ.

____

LunaHound wrote:

Durandal wrote:The current Russ design is based off of a French WWII design.

You have stumbled upon something there i high lighted in bold.

I've always seen the Russ as a gaming-simplified WW1 British Mk.V Tank, hence the trapezoidal overrunning tracks, box sponsons, and inset hull. Where GW went horribly wrong with the design was slapping a Turret on the thing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Ironhide wrote:A land raider is bigger because it's got to hold all those troops. If you make the russ just as big, then we'll need a bigger land raider. don't ya think?

Well...
- A M1 Abrams MBT hull footprint is 26' x 12', for a total weight of nearly 70 tons
- A M2 Bradley IFV hull footprint is 22' x 12', for a total weight of roughly 30 tons

Ordnance-class Guns take up space!

So I can see a Russ being similar in footprint to a Land Raider. The Russ would have a shorter Hull, because the Turret makes up a bunch of height, but the overall volume would still be less.

My main concern is that the land raider is about 6.5 inches, which scales up to just over 32'. In my mind 32' might be a bit to large for a main battle tank. As it is a leman russ scales to between 21' to 23' obviously that's on the smaller side; I think the overall volume is right so if we lower the center of mass a bit you can spread the volume length wise a bit. I'd say it should be in 25' - 28' range, but that may just be me. If the model were 5" then it represents a 25' length while if its 5.6" its about a 28' foot length. That's one inch shorter than a land raider but still pretty substantial.

Also I think the battle cannon needs to shrink a bit, so the fact its currently over sized doesn't in and to itself justify a landraider sized chassis.

Here are more of the round shape i like
( ignore the size issue )

To accomplish the rounded ends like that you want the drive wheels to be large and the same size as each other and in direct alignment with each other. You could pick up a large sized tank model to get the wheels or maybe use large lego gears or wheels to make them.

I had a few ideas I sketched out, but I lack the autocad program required to actually do out the full 3d build and prints with dimensions like I would want, but here's an extremely basic version of something I think might be a little more appealing while still retaining the russ appearance.

Taking inspiration from the panzer IV

Hull: widen only slightly, shorten overall height, lengthen considerably, expand the vent to cover most of the space available. Drivers hatch/area needs expanded would add scopes akin to a modern stryker or abrams, hull mount shortened and very panzerIV.

Turret: widen, elongate, steepen the angles, add gunner sight, two hatches instead of one. longer, narrower barrel, smaller muzzlebreak, maintain large recoil mech.

Very very rough concept I threw together real quick, skirts are grey transparant, hull isn't the exact shape I wanted, needs to be closer to the center point of the roadwheels, more dramatic slope on the front end. Don't have time to throw together a 3-view.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Ironhide wrote:A land raider is bigger because it's got to hold all those troops. If you make the russ just as big, then we'll need a bigger land raider. don't ya think?

Well...
- A M1 Abrams MBT hull footprint is 26' x 12', for a total weight of nearly 70 tons
- A M2 Bradley IFV hull footprint is 22' x 12', for a total weight of roughly 30 tons

Ordnance-class Guns take up space!

So I can see a Russ being similar in footprint to a Land Raider. The Russ would have a shorter Hull, because the Turret makes up a bunch of height, but the overall volume would still be less.

Not a good comparison. A M1 Abrams has a jet turbine engine, which when taken out takes up a little over a third of the hull. Not counting the 2 huge fuel tanks they have. M2 Brad has a diesel engine and the transport capacity is 3 crew + 6 dismounts. M2 Bradley is a better comparison for the razorback.

Land Raider has 2 TL lascannons and a TL heavy bolter, better armor, plus the ability to carry 12 people. There is no way a Russ should be of comparable size to it.

Ironhide wrote:Land Raider has 2 TL lascannons and a TL heavy bolter, better armor, plus the ability to carry 12 people. There is no way a Russ should be of comparable size to it.

Indeed. And, in the case of the crusader which has hurricane bolters, a multi melta, and an assault cannon, it can still carry 16 people. And not just ordinary humans, but marines, which happen to be about 8 feet tall and 4 or so wide.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:So I can see a Russ being similar in footprint to a Land Raider. The Russ would have a shorter Hull, because the Turret makes up a bunch of height, but the overall volume would still be less.

My main concern is that the land raider is about 6.5 inches, which scales up to just over 32'.

That's one inch shorter than a land raider but still pretty substantial.

IMO, scaling doesn't work - these aren't scale models, if so, GW does a crappy job of scaling... IMO, tanks should be scaled to other models in the same system. Anyhow, a Land Raider is 7" long, and a Baneblade is over 9" long. I've got superheavy conversions planned with hulls nearly 11" long. So in that context a 6.5+" Leman Russ isn't out of the question. Especially with the Baneblade running parallel, and extended tracks that overrun the central hull.
____

LunaHound wrote:
Here are more of the round shape i like

Those are very cute. The mecha designer did some really good work there.
___

Ironhide wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
- A M1 Abrams MBT hull footprint is 26'
- A M2 Bradley IFV hull footprint is 22'

So I can see a Russ being similar in footprint to a Land Raider. The Russ would have a shorter Hull, because the Turret makes up a bunch of height, but the overall volume would still be less.

Not a good comparison. A M1 Abrams has a jet turbine engine, which when taken out takes up a little over a third of the hull.

Land Raider has 2 TL lascannons and a TL heavy bolter, better armor, plus the ability to carry 12 people.

Not a good critique. A M1 needs a larger, more powerful engine because it weighs more than twice as much. Which illustrates the difference between AV14 and AV12.

All of the Land Raider weapon systems are externally-mounted, whereas the Leman Russ holds all of its hull and turret weapons internally. As the Russ is also AV14, the weight, and therefore, engine should be roughly comparable. Also, as it is turreted, a bunch of space is "wasted" in the turret mechanism and articulation requirements.

Also, just as contemporaneous M1 and M2 use different armor and engine technology, Land Raider and Leman Russ could also have a technology difference which results in the Land Raider being more highly space/size-optimized to support rapid insertion via Thunderhawk Transporter, along with far higher-capability Techmarine support vs more ordinary Enginseer support...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Not a good critique. A M1 needs a larger, more powerful engine because it weighs more than twice as much. Which illustrates the difference between AV14 and AV12.

All of the Land Raider weapon systems are externally-mounted, whereas the Leman Russ holds all of its hull and turret weapons internally. As the Russ is also AV14, the weight, and therefore, engine should be roughly comparable. Also, as it is turreted, a bunch of space is "wasted" in the turret mechanism and articulation requirements.

The Leman Russ is AV 14... front. The Land Raider is AV 14 all around. The Land Raider is significantly larger and much more heavily armed, meaning it needs a larger engine. A Leman Russ is a slow moving tank that uses DAoT technology, a low powered engine using highly advanced technology would certainly be much, much smaller than a modern tank's engine.
I think it's safe to assume that most of the side sponson machinery is contained within the sponson, due to the fact that there are both sponson and non-sponson variants of the tank, they would not want to have there be a significant waste of interior space on the non-sponson versions.
The fact remains that the Leman Russ is less armored, smaller, and slower than the land raider (meaning less engine space required). The Land Raider has a very large amount of space taken up by transporting 8 suits of tactical dreadnought armor.

Honestly, do you really think that "heavy armor on all sides, transport capacity for 8 terminators, larger engine" and "has to have some amount of turret articulation within the hull" are equivalent? Odds are, the entirety of turret control, interior sponson machinery, and the whole IG crew take up less space than 2 terminators. Sure, maybe you could argue that the Leman Russ could be a little bit bigger, but Land Raider size? Come on.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, just as contemporaneous M1 and M2 use different armor and engine technology, Land Raider and Leman Russ could also have a technology difference which results in the Land Raider being more highly space/size-optimized to support rapid insertion via Thunderhawk Transporter, along with far higher-capability Techmarine support vs more ordinary Enginseer support...

Quite. Space Marine vehicles follow an entirely different, more sophisticated design paradigm. It stands to reason that they were designed in the height of Man's technological golden age, whereas the LR is a product of a much more debased, degenerate humankind.

JohnHwangDD wrote:IMO, scaling doesn't work - these aren't scale models, if so, GW does a crappy job of scaling... IMO, tanks should be scaled to other models in the same system. Anyhow, a Land Raider is 7" long, and a Baneblade is over 9" long. I've got superheavy conversions planned with hulls nearly 11" long. So in that context a 6.5+" Leman Russ isn't out of the question. Especially with the Baneblade running parallel, and extended tracks that overrun the central hull.

I understand scaling doesn't work as an absolute, but there is some genera; scale even if it isn't consistent. That is why most of the dimensions I gave for the Russ were ranges. Super heavies can be whatever size so really that's moot. In a more relativistic term at 6.5+" your looking at about 50% increase in volume. It seems to me that you want your Leman Russ to be a Malcador or a Macharius. I've voiced my opinions on that vague region between large tank and small super heavy, I think a 6.5+" Russ only grays that line.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
As the Russ is also AV14, the weight, and therefore, engine should be roughly comparable.

The Leman Russ either has an undersized engine or is over armored that is kinda the point with Lumbering behemoth. Thus the engines are not that immediately comparable. Also if the Leman Russ struggle with heavy armor only on the front and sides it only adds to the fact that its engine isn't anywhere near the power or sophistication of a land raider.

I think the relationship between an M1 and M2 is more important at looking at the size difference between the Chimera and the Leman Russ. Both pairs are constrained by their technologies but the relationships between each should hold true. Between a M1 and M2 your looking at foot print difference of 7%. If you made a Leman Russ 6.5+" the difference between Russ and Chimera would be almost 50%. Since both are built by the same technology the context of that technological similarities between the two dictate that the two have some relationship between form and function. You can make the argument that the chimera is undersized, but it wouldn't be as substantial as a 50% increase to size. Its important to remember there is some grounding to the size of things and that the context of that dictates a relationship.

Troz wrote:I had a few ideas I sketched out...

I like it. I've been doodling about with some ideas and some of them were similar to this. The only problem I ultimately had was in dealing with the fact that in being a Leman Russ you had to design in the secondary weapons, which struggle to fit into these profiles.

I think in the end its a matter of coming up with a good way of mounting sponson weapons in such a way as to not break up the profile badly.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think that's the general consensus.

Personally, I'd like to see an embiggened Russ tank.

No not in the least. There's absolutely no reason to make the vehicle that large. The landraider is the largest model in 40K that I am aware of.

But there is also no reason why Russ cant be gigantic!

i have 2 reasons why it should be ok!

1) Lumbering BEHEMOTH rule ( must be big right )

2) Its named after a Primarch who is if im not mistaken
giant among other primarchs. Wont imperium feel its an insult if they have a tiny little tank?

I have three problems with the Russ.

1. Lack of gunnery and recoil space for the main gun. - This to me is the big problem.

2. Oversized heavy bolters and lascannon. - Especially when compared to new kits. This is easily rectifiable with a knife.

3. Large flat sides. - Only an issue if you dont add sponsons, and the main reason I always found the excuse to add sponsons even in v3 rules.

aka_mythos wrote:
The only problem I ultimately had was in dealing with the fact that in being a Leman Russ you had to design in the secondary weapons, which struggle to fit into these profiles.

I think in the end its a matter of coming up with a good way of mounting sponson weapons in such a way as to not break up the profile badly.

I figured a sponson would mount at the forward edge of the center skirt plate without much disruption of the design format.

Going to see if I can't procure some cad software and model it true 3d.

*H.B.M.C. looks at his three Armoured Companies*

Yeah I kinda like the Russ the way it is.

Do we have any news at all to around what month can we expect to see some picture of the new Russ?

H.B.M.C. wrote:*H.B.M.C. looks at his three Armoured Companies*

Yeah I kinda like the Russ the way it is.

er i see, thats very insightful ty.

LunaHound wrote:
Do we have any news at all to around what month can we expect to see some picture of the new Russ?

Late summer, early fall is what I've heard.

LunaHound wrote:But there is also no reason why Russ cant be gigantic!

i have 2 reasons why it should be ok!

1) Lumbering BEHEMOTH rule ( must be big right )

2) Its named after a Primarch who is if im not mistaken
giant among other primarchs. Wont imperium feel its an insult if they have a tiny little tank?

Up until the valkyrie I would have said the main reason is its suppose to maintain some degree of practicality and fit on the table, especially with it being in squadrons.

The point I've tried to make time and time again is that when you take the distorted scale of these things into consideration the Leman Russ is not "tiny" nor is it huge. Its pretty basic in size, a wee bit on the smaller side, but generally close to what it should be. The land raider is based on a Mark 1 Tank, for the most part, the model scales to being 32' long the same length as a Mark 1, is that just coincidence? These relative scales aren't perfect but they sure tell us that a main "battle tank" isn't going to be more than 5.5" or so. There is wiggle room to build it a little large, but if the thing were sitting next to you in real life it'd still dwarf you even without a change in dimensions.

Its more than just name after Leman Russ, he developed the tank.

Also, just as contemporaneous M1 and M2 use different armor and engine technology, Land Raider and Leman Russ could also have a technology difference which results in the Land Raider being more highly space/size-optimized to support rapid insertion via Thunderhawk Transporter, along with far higher-capability Techmarine support vs more ordinary Enginseer support...

Not a good critique on you part either. ;-) A person can actually get a good idea on how big the engine on a Land Raider is, and we can determine the size from where the engine is on a Leman Russ. The Russ has a smaller engine. Also not taking into account how much space the machine spirit takes up.

Techmarines and Engiseers are both trained on Mars, but the enginseer is actually part of the Mechanicum so his knowledge would be more than a Techmarines. Do you really think the Mechanicum is going to give all of its secrets away to someone who's loyalty is not to them?

I think the relationship between an M1 and M2 is more important at looking at the size difference between the Chimera and the Leman Russ. Both pairs are constrained by their technologies but the relationships between each should hold true. Between a M1 and M2 your looking at foot print difference of 7%. If you made a Leman Russ 6.5+" the difference between Russ and Chimera would be almost 50%. Since both are built by the same technology the context of that technological similarities between the two dictate that the two have some relationship between form and function. You can make the argument that the chimera is undersized, but it wouldn't be as substantial as a 50% increase to size. Its important to remember there is some grounding to the size of things and that the context of that dictates a relationship.

This was along the line I was thinking of as far as comparisons go.

The biggest problem I have with a Russ, is the fact it is an one-man turret. How exactly is the man in the turret supposed to fire the main gun and fire a Heavy Stubber or Storm Bolter?. The turret should at least be big enough for two hatches and the hull should be wider.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:IMO, scaling doesn't work Anyhow, a Land Raider is 7" long, and a Baneblade is over 9" long. So in that context a 6.5+" Leman Russ isn't out of the question.

I understand scaling doesn't work as an absolute,

Super heavies can be whatever size so really that's moot.

In a more relativistic term at 6.5+" your looking at about 50% increase in volume.

the Leman Russ struggle with heavy armor only on the front and sides it only adds to the fact that its engine isn't anywhere near the power or sophistication of a land raider.

Between a M1 and M2 your looking at foot print difference of 7%.

If you made a Leman Russ 6.5+" the difference between Russ and Chimera would be almost 50%.

OK, good that we at least agree that GW models aren't scale models. After all, if you look at the artwork, one readily concludes that a Leman Russ is 16 to 20 feet tall and over 30 feet wide...

IMO, the current Baneblade is getting close to that limit. If you were to upscale the Baneblade by 50%, or more, it'd just be Orky-silly.

6.5" long vs 5" long isn't a 50% increase in length, it's a 30% increase in length. Increasing the volume by 50% would be OK, as then the total enclosed interior volume would be comparable to the total volume of the Chimera. That would be about right.

Also, good that we agree that the Land Raider has a better engine.

How are you getting only 7%? The widths are about the same, but the M1 is 26' long and the M2 is 22' long. That's nearly 20% longer for 20% greater footprint. I think your math is iffy.

And how are you getting 50%? At 5" long, the Chimera would be within 25% of the length of a 6.5" long Russ. Within the Russ chassis, the enclosed interior volume would be about the same as the Chimera's interior. Extended tracks running ahead and behind the main tank hull could easily account for nearly an inch of the Russ' overall body length, and would be consistent with the current design cues.
____

Frazzled wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Personally, I'd like to see an embiggened Russ tank.

There's absolutely no reason to make the vehicle that large. The landraider is the largest model in 40K that I am aware of.

If you're talking about non-FW GW models for 40k, the Baneblade is clearly larger as Tanks go, along with the Stompa and Valkyrie...
____

Ironhide wrote:

Also, just as contemporaneous M1 and M2 use different armor and engine technology, Land Raider and Leman Russ could also have a technology difference which results in the Land Raider being more highly space/size-optimized to support rapid insertion via Thunderhawk Transporter, along with far higher-capability Techmarine support vs more ordinary Enginseer support...

Not a good critique on you part either. ;-)

A person can actually get a good idea on how big the engine on a Land Raider is, and we can determine the size from where the engine is on a Leman Russ. The Russ has a smaller engine.

Also not taking into account how much space the machine spirit takes up.

Techmarines and Engiseers are both trained on Mars, but the enginseer is actually part of the Mechanicum so his knowledge would be more than a Techmarines. Do you really think the Mechanicum is going to give all of its secrets away to someone who's loyalty is not to them?

The biggest problem I have with a Russ, is the fact it is an one-man turret. How exactly is the man in the turret supposed to fire the main gun and fire a Heavy Stubber or Storm Bolter?.

But you're comparing the Mk.1 Russ & engine to the Mk.2 Raider. How big is the original Mk.1 Raider engine?

As we see with the Chaos Land Raider compared with the Dark Angel Land Raider, the Machine Sprit takes up no space. In the case of the Ultramarines, they obviously like to get closer to one another, riding on each others laps, when the ride turns bouncy...

The Enginseer is just an Motor Pool Mechanic, not a Defense Contractor Design Engineer - he knows no secrets. Besides, it's the Techmarines who keep making up new vehicles (Vindicator, Crusader, Redeemer, Storm), so they must know something more...

The biggest problem I have with the current turret is how the gun recoils when someone is looking out the hatch... Seems like "beef stew for dinner!"

No more math while I'm doing other things...

Lengths and widths might be close on an M1 and M2, but the M2 is taller.

Let's not even bring the Mk 1 Land Raider into this. That thing was so off scale it was ridiculous even for 40k.

I think the Leman Russ would be better if you widen the hull by about 1/4 of an inch, and lengthen it by about 1/2 inch. Fix the turrent. Smaller height on the turret with more width to add a second hatch.

When I say Mk1 we mean a British WWI tank.

Ironhide wrote:Lengths and widths might be close on an M1 and M2, but the M2 is taller.

Let's not even bring the Mk 1 Land Raider into this. That thing was so off scale it was ridiculous even for 40k.

I think the Leman Russ would be better if you widen the hull by about 1/4 of an inch, and lengthen it by about 1/2 inch. Fix the turrent. Smaller height on the turret with more width to add a second hatch.

True, the M2 is taller, due to its turret, but the overall enclosed volumes are similar.

OK, agreed, but then if we take the Mk.1 Land Raider out, then no fair comparing the Mk.2 Land Raider with the Mk.2 Leman Russ...

IMO, the Russ desperately needs wider tracks, along with a longer (Mars Alpha plus) hull. Wider, flatter turret (split the difference somewhat with the Chimera and Baneblade shapes), definitely. At a minimum, offset the commander so he's not where the the breech goes...

Ironhide wrote:
Let's not even bring the Mk 1 Land Raider into this. That thing was so off scale it was ridiculous even for 40k.

It was only off scale because other things changed size in the 40 universe... if you look at the picture of it in the RT Rule book it was pretty in scale to the initial marine consept models it was shown with. By the time it was redone - it needed a rework just so that it was back "in scale" (or a bit more realistic to you and me) ... so did the rhino...

Ironhide wrote:I think the Leman Russ would be better if you widen the hull by about 1/4 of an inch, and lengthen it by about 1/2 inch. Fix the turrent. Smaller height on the turret with more width to add a second hatch.

My 1p..

I like the russ, but i think its time for its rework...

Widen the tracks by 50-100% (I do that with all mine anyway)
Lower the profile so the sidea re about as high at the chimera sides.. this will lower the profile but still allow Sponsons..
Make it about 1.5 inchs longer...
Leave the turret shape as is, maybe make it a bit longer to fut the lengthened hull... but change the gun... The battle cannon should be thinner and longer

That would give dimensions of

Current vs Proposed
Width 3" vs 4"
Height (- turret) 2" vs 1.5"
Height (+ turret) 2.75" vs 2.25"
Length 4.5" vs 6"

I did some CAD work today on the concept I had for making retroactive Horus Heresy era Leman Russ. It is meant to incorporate aspects of both the RT era predator, 2nd edition predator with bits of the current day detail aesthetic tossed in. They are intended for my Adeptus Mechanicus army and will represent Leman Russ' original prototypes for the Leman Russ battle tank. For that reason I wanted them to have an appearance that was not only reminiscent of past predators but with inklings of the imperial guard.


Its a work in progress. I still need to thin down the blast shield and add a few details in and around the gun. The gun and blast shield are a separate part with a pocket that conforms to the balls curve. When I have them cast I only need two parts to position it into different angles. The mounting plate and the ball are the second part and are pocketed so that they can fit over the raised locating surfaces for the leman russ' standard sponsons. For scale the hemisphere is roughly an inch in diameter and only half an inch thick, the plate has the same major dimension of the leman russ' sponsons. When complete and the blast shields been modified it will have a 45 degree tilt up, 45 degrees down, and 180 degrees horizontal field of fire.

ph34r wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Not a good critique. A M1 needs a larger, more powerful engine because it weighs more than twice as much. Which illustrates the difference between AV14 and AV12.

All of the Land Raider weapon systems are externally-mounted, whereas the Leman Russ holds all of its hull and turret weapons internally. As the Russ is also AV14, the weight, and therefore, engine should be roughly comparable. Also, as it is turreted, a bunch of space is "wasted" in the turret mechanism and articulation requirements.

The Leman Russ is AV 14... front. The Land Raider is AV 14 all around. The Land Raider is significantly larger and much more heavily armed, meaning it needs a larger engine. A Leman Russ is a slow moving tank that uses DAoT technology, a low powered engine using highly advanced technology would certainly be much, much smaller than a modern tank's engine.
I think it's safe to assume that most of the side sponson machinery is contained within the sponson, due to the fact that there are both sponson and non-sponson variants of the tank, they would not want to have there be a significant waste of interior space on the non-sponson versions.
The fact remains that the Leman Russ is less armored, smaller, and slower than the land raider (meaning less engine space required). The Land Raider has a very large amount of space taken up by transporting 8 suits of tactical dreadnought armor.

Honestly, do you really think that "heavy armor on all sides, transport capacity for 8 terminators, larger engine" and "has to have some amount of turret articulation within the hull" are equivalent? Odds are, the entirety of turret control, interior sponson machinery, and the whole IG crew take up less space than 2 terminators. Sure, maybe you could argue that the Leman Russ could be a little bit bigger, but Land Raider size? Come on.

This, basically. A Leman Russ should obviously not be the size of a Land Raider or even near to it.

I would say that Overall size should be halfway between the current 'Russ and the Land Raider.

For me the biggest thing i'd like to be changed is the hull lascannon, it's just too big, not to mention it looks like the previous era of lascannons, not the current ones.

Fetterkey wrote:This, basically. A Leman Russ should obviously not be the size of a Land Raider or even near to it.

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss how it scales next to Marine stuff, only how it relates to the rest of the Guard range, which pretty clearly requires it to be larger.

If you're talking about non-FW GW models for 40k, the Baneblade is clearly larger as Tanks go, along with the Stompa and Valkyrie...

No I am talking 40K, not the vomitus filth that is apocalypse. I could just as easily say its tiny next to a Void Stalker class battleship, but that too would be a different game system.

In 40K, its second only to a landraider (unless you think vertical with the monolith).

Valkyrie isn't an Apcalypse model.

Frazzled wrote:

If you're talking about non-FW GW models for 40k, the Baneblade is clearly larger as Tanks go, along with the Stompa and Valkyrie...

No I am talking 40K, not the vomitus filth that is apocalypse. I could just as easily say its tiny next to a Void Stalker class battleship, but that too would be a different game system.

In 40K, its second only to a landraider (unless you think vertical with the monolith).

I don't normally say stuff like this but I think taking it down a notch might be a good thing. I enjoy Apocalypse and standard 40k... I do understand your sentiment and would go so far as to say that one is blurring the line as far as scale and scope are concerned, but I don't think attacking one persons way of having fun is right.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:This, basically. A Leman Russ should obviously not be the size of a Land Raider or even near to it.

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss how it scales next to Marine stuff, only how it relates to the rest of the Guard range, which pretty clearly requires it to be larger.

Scaled compared to the infantry, or the chimera chassis vehicles? Why would you think it would need to be larger?
"Pretty clearly" is not a reason. You have read my reasons if you have read the thread, would you care to explain why they do not make sense to you?

ph34r wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:This, basically. A Leman Russ should obviously not be the size of a Land Raider or even near to it.

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss how it scales next to Marine stuff, only how it relates to the rest of the Guard range, which pretty clearly requires it to be larger.

Scaled compared to the infantry, or the chimera chassis vehicles? Why would you think it would need to be larger?
"Pretty clearly" is not a reason. You have read my reasons if you have read the thread, would you care to explain why they do not make sense to you?

They're sensible reasons, I just don't agree with them. It boils down to the following for me.

1. The Russ needs larger tracks. The Guard is described as a trench-fighting force, and the stock Russ has tiny ground contact area in relation to its mass, i.e. it'd bog down. I don't see this as a major drawback for the Chimera, as those vehicles are, background-wise, deployed in different tactical environments

2. The Russ needs a longer wheelbase. A breakthrough vehicle in those conditions needs to be able to bridge trenches.

3. The Russ needs a larger turret. The gun can't get too much smaller, and its size should still be reflected in the statline, and we need enough space inside the turret for a believable breech assembly and at least a two-man crew (pretty typical for MBTs to have 2 or 3 guys in there). Also, if you want to get down to realism, there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could go in there as well, including but not limited to a vox set for the commander, ammunition storage, motors for turret rotation, etc.

I think hull-wise, the Mars Alpha pattern is more in the right ballpark, it'd just need proportionally larger track units to answer demands 1 and 2. It doesn't have to be an increase on all axes, though. I think all in all, the hull height could go down a tad, if the overall length were to go up. Something along how the Land Raider proportions changed from Mk1 to Mk2 (the Mk2 is also larger as a whole, but I'm here talking more about how the shape changed).

I'd also argue that Marine tanks should automatically just be better on all fronts. Theirs is a very sophisticated design, probably built of the same ceramite alloys as power armor itself, powered by efficient propulsion systems and airdropped into war zones by Thunderhawks. The Land Raider should be the pinnacle of Imperial vehicle design, featuring unparalleled efficiency for its size, whereas the Russ is a wasteful, crude design, built en masse by unskilled labor and operated by poorly trained slave-soldiers of the Guard. The Land Raider is much more of a "science fiction tank"*, the Russ is more of an "alternate history tank", as it were.

* If I had my druthers, Marine tanks and vehicles would be even more futuristic than they are now, with design cues taken from real-lfe vehicles dating from the 90s upwards, to differentiate them from the Guard's 1930s chic. Sloped armor, ablative armor, antipersonnel charges, and what have you.

@Aga - totally agreed. I'd also like to see SM move away from the M113-style transport to something more modern-looking.

@ the tracks length / height etc etc

Like i mentioned while playing Dawn of War ( game not mission ) it seriousely looks like Russ will roll over when ever they go up or down a tiny hill.

*omg typo and leaving out words ><

Agamemnon2 wrote:They're sensible reasons, I just don't agree with them. It boils down to the following for me.

1. The Russ needs larger tracks. The Guard is described as a trench-fighting force, and the stock Russ has tiny ground contact area in relation to its mass, i.e. it'd bog down. I don't see this as a major drawback for the Chimera, as those vehicles are, background-wise, deployed in different tactical environments

2. The Russ needs a longer wheelbase. A breakthrough vehicle in those conditions needs to be able to bridge trenches.

3. The Russ needs a larger turret. The gun can't get too much smaller, and its size should still be reflected in the statline, and we need enough space inside the turret for a believable breech assembly and at least a two-man crew (pretty typical for MBTs to have 2 or 3 guys in there). Also, if you want to get down to realism, there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could go in there as well, including but not limited to a vox set for the commander, ammunition storage, motors for turret rotation, etc.

I think hull-wise, the Mars Alpha pattern is more in the right ballpark, it'd just need proportionally larger track units to answer demands 1 and 2. It doesn't have to be an increase on all axes, though. I think all in all, the hull height could go down a tad, if the overall length were to go up.

I think that's one of fairest assessments we've had so far and wraps it up in a nice succinct package. I want to add some comments:
1. As far as it being reasonably realistic it doesn't matter too much what the individual tracks dimensions are like as long as its overall surface contact with the ground is appropriate to keep it from sinking into soft earth. Keeping the current length would mean widening the the tracks. From a practical stand point lengthening the tank (2) and bringing its height down (per 3) solve this problem as well.

2. The main caution with stretching the wheel base would be that not too much of the mass also gets stretched out and we end up with something that looks maybe a bit too bulked in the wrong places.

3. The basic profile of the Leman Russ turret really lends itself to some basic stretching. If you maintain the height its pretty easy to end up with something that has more believable size with a 40k aesthetic. As far as the cannon goes, it should be about only 2/3 its current diameter; that would still keep it pretty hefty looking but without looking like it shoots people for ammunition. As it is, its a battleship sized cannon that does the damage of a conventional 120mm cannon.

I think you could accomplish enough of the design change to make an improvement just by doing two of three. I think 1 and 2 are interchangeable where one or the other are necessary. A mars alpha hull with either elongate tacks or widen tracks would accomplish the hull redesign. Making a turret that looks right might be a bit more challenging, because I think it becomes a bit too tempting to want to bulk it out in all directions.

Anyone have some interesting turret concepts?

Agamemnon2 wrote:
I'd also argue that Marine tanks should automatically just be better on all fronts. Theirs is a very sophisticated design, probably built of the same ceramite alloys as power armor itself, powered by efficient propulsion systems and airdropped into war zones by Thunderhawks. The Land Raider should be the pinnacle of Imperial vehicle design, featuring unparalleled efficiency for its size, whereas the Russ is a wasteful, crude design, built en masse by unskilled labor and operated by poorly trained slave-soldiers of the Guard. The Land Raider is much more of a "science fiction tank"*, the Russ is more of an "alternate history tank", as it were.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Aga - totally agreed. I'd also like to see SM move away from the M113-style transport to something more modern-looking.

I agree marine tanks should be generally better. Its just important to remember that they are designed for a specific task IG tanks aren't designed for. That is that they are designed to be easily carried for atmospheric transport by Thunderhawk. The simple fact is when ever you take a combat vehicle and design it for a function in addition to a combat role, the combat role will suffer as a result, because compromises will be made. I actually believe that the M113 and M55's are exactly the sort of design that reflects the space marines. With all the light weight materials and attempts to do so we haven't managed to produce an air drop capable armored vehicle beyond these. There are few modern day vehicles comparable to that, thus its hard to make a real comparison on the aesthetics of a modern air drop armored vehicle.

Space marine tanks aren't the overall best, but are best at what they do. They are about as armored as imperial guard tanks and they can be combat dropped. There is technology in that and its generally pretty good. The question might be "why isn't a predator as good as a Leman Russ battle tank?" The simple answer might be that bulking up the armor on a predator would mean Thunderhawk Transports could only carry single predators instead of two at a time which means from a landing perspective you then have to count on that predator doing as much as a Land Raider. So when someone says a Space Marine vehicle needs to be better its important to remember there is always more to the criteria of 'better' than solely their combat effectiveness. Their are other measures, such as being able to choose your battlefield or rapid deployment that are critical aspects that can be overlooked. So when I say Space Marine tanks should be better I only mean it to the degree that their most important asset be acknowledged and represent rule wise. Like allowing their tanks to redeploy or outflank on the table.

1. I agree that the tracks could be wider, but only a bit, not double wide as some people want.
2. The Leman Russ does not need to be a breakthrough vehicle. The Malcador does this.
3. I agree that the turret should be bigger, like the alpha pattern.

I also agree that of course the Leman Russ should have the hull go all the way down to the tracks. An example of this being fixed is seen on the Malcador.

The hull doesn't need to be larger to accomplish any of these, except the idea that the Leman Russ should be able to bridge trenches by having a longer hull. Leman Russes can be outfitted with trench rails, as the DKoK do. If you want what is basically a Leman Russ with a long hull to bridge trenches, get a Malcador.

3. The basic profile of the Leman Russ turret really lends itself to some basic stretching. If you maintain the height its pretty easy to end up with something that has more believable size with a 40k aesthetic. As far as the cannon goes, it should be about only 2/3 its current diameter; that would still keep it pretty hefty looking but without looking like it shoots people for ammunition. As it is, its a battleship sized cannon that does the damage of a conventional 120mm cannon.

What does the fluff say about Leman Russ ammunition? Is it a standard shell-type? Or a hybrid rocket propelled round like the kind fired by a conventional Sheridan tank? I only ask because the standard bolter round is rocket propelled also.

Let me clarify... I don't know really what the shell of a leman russ is like, my point was more that if we take a more realistic slant the Leman Russ' turret and cannon are clearly oversized. That even if we assume its more dangerous than a modern day battle tanks cannon, it could still be smaller than it currently is. The leman russ appears to use conventional ammunition, making it just a large cannon.

Not anymore bigger than a demolisher cannon, and that is on the same chasis. I personally don't think the main gun is too big.

Well in fairness a demolisher's appearance is based on this sort of tanks weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg

Which shared the same chassis as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-554-0872-35,_Tunesien,_Panzer_VI_(Tiger_I).jpg

The demolisher as a cannon doesn't make too much sense as a turret mounted weapon, but it is. The Sturmtiger mounted a 380mm cannon which is about what Leman Russ demolisher has. That has to be mounted in the hull and not the turret for a reason.

I guess the arguement should be made that the Battle Cannon is currently too big for its turret.

ph34r wrote:The hull doesn't need to be larger to accomplish any of these, except the idea that the Leman Russ should be able to bridge trenches by having a longer hull. Leman Russes can be outfitted with trench rails, as the DKoK do. If you want what is basically a Leman Russ with a long hull to bridge trenches, get a Malcador.

Trench rails would help somewhat, though my gut feeling still remains that the tank's mass distribution remains awkward.

Also, the Malcador is explictly stated to be mostly withdrawn from standard service as an obsolete piece of junk. Which amusingly reflects the state of its rules to a tee.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Trench rails would help somewhat, though my gut feeling still remains that the tank's mass distribution remains awkward.

Also, the Malcador is explictly stated to be mostly withdrawn from standard service as an obsolete piece of junk. Which amusingly reflects the state of its rules to a tee.

This is true. The Leman Russ is high and not too stable looking. If it was made slightly longer and slightly shorter, I think that this problem would be a lot less apparent. However, if you just make it significantly longer you basically have a Malcador, and even though they are indeed unusual to see on the battlefield due to their obsoleteness, that doesn't mean that the Leman Russ should be redesigned to be basically the same vehicle, but with a turret instead of solid raised "tower".

The fundamental problem with the Malcador is that it's tracks are the same narrow, Chimera-based tracks that the current Russ uses. Even with trench rails, the Malcador would likely tend to dig itself hull-deep in soft ground.

If the Russ tracks were increased in width 50% to 75%, they'd be wide enough to work in soft ground, while not being obnoxiously wide.

But that still wouldn't address the need for trench-crossing length, so the total track length would need extension to around 6.5". Over 7" probably starts flattening the hull silhouette too much unless one is deliberately trying to go for a WW1 British "tadpole" design.

Then, with a wider, deeper body, a broader, flatter turret can sit on top without looking too far out of place.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The fundamental problem with the Malcador is that it's tracks are the same narrow, Chimera-based tracks that the current Russ uses. Even with trench rails, the Malcador would likely tend to dig itself hull-deep in soft ground.

If the Russ tracks were increased in width 50% to 75%, they'd be wide enough to work in soft ground, while not being obnoxiously wide.

But that still wouldn't address the need for trench-crossing length, so the total track length would need extension to around 6.5". Over 7" probably starts flattening the hull silhouette too much unless one is deliberately trying to go for a WW1 British "tadpole" design.

Then, with a wider, deeper body, a broader, flatter turret can sit on top without looking too far out of place.

I agree with you half way here. The tracks definitely need to be a bit wider, not as wide as the "double wide" conversions that people seem to like, but as you said 50-75% would be good.
I don't have a Leman Russ with me to measure at the moment, but how much of an increase is that? If you go more than 1", you are basically in Malcador territory.
As you can see here, the length difference is not that great. Make the Leman Russ longer, and you are basically making it a Malcador with a different weapon. Trench-crossing length could be addressed instead by making the Leman Russ slightly longer and giving it trench rails.

According to FW, a Malcador is 8" long. And the FW pics clearly show trench rails being added.

Now, if I get out my tape measure, ...

A standard Russ is only 4.5" long.

As an aside, wow, I'm really sorry guys. As all of my Russ-based SPGs use full custom hulls that overrun the tracks for a 5" overall length, so I completely forgot how stubby the standard Russ was -- Oops!

Anyhow, you can easily go 6.5" in length on a Russ before you begin to approach a Malcador. Even 7" wouldn't be bad.

Going longer *and* wider is definitely how to make the Russ more imposing on the battlefield!

Is that 8" including the trench rails? I think it must be so, the picture makes it seem like the Russ is at least 2/3 the length of the Malcador. Here's my mspaint approximation. If a russ is 4.5" long, I would guess that the Malcador is 6.5" long, with the trench rails being another 1.5" to make 8".
Oh, and I disagree that the russ should be wider... it is already one of the widest tanks, and fairly short in length combined with this is kinda weird looking.

I like it , I dont know why but I have always thought it was a cool tank . Yes it can use some new bits and pieces but all in all in all it just reminds me of the gritty guard .

I don't think the 8" would include the trench rails - if they did, you might as well count the barrel overhang on a Vanquisher and conclude a basic Russ is really long.

The thing to remember is the real issue with the size of tracks is about weight distribution. It doesn't matter how wide or long your tracks are its more about their surface contact with relation to your center of gravity. So with building a tank you can make the individual tracks wider or the track system longer to accomplish the increased in surface area. Something like the Malcador which is about twice as long run on the Leman Russ' track assembly if they were twice the width. Proportions and balance might be off but it wouldn't sink.

If one were to demand a fluffy reason for Malcadors utilizing the same tracks as a Leman Russ, it could be a supply chain issue; the ministronum could only effectively provide replacement parts and service equipment, in the quantity need to one basic track pattern.

What are ya'll talking about trench rails? Are ya'll commenting on the stabilizers on the back of the Malcador?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't think the 8" would include the trench rails - if they did, you might as well count the barrel overhang on a Vanquisher and conclude a basic Russ is really long.

The hull side is about 20 centimeters / 7.8 inches from the end of the sprocket directly to the other end I don't have the trench rails on mine, so I can't measure what they'd add to that.

Ironhide wrote:What are ya'll talking about trench rails? Are ya'll commenting on the stabilizers on the back of the Malcador?

Here... fourth picture down: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/lrupgrades.htm
The Malcador has them: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/malclc.htm
They were a common retro-fit addition to armored vehicles in areas where alot of trenches were dug. They prevent the rear of the tank from crashing into the trench. In all practicality though they were mostly common on mid-sized tanks.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't think the 8" would include the trench rails - if they did, you might as well count the barrel overhang on a Vanquisher and conclude a basic Russ is really long.

The hull side is about 20 centimeters / 7.8 inches from the end of the sprocket directly to the other end I don't have the trench rails on mine, so I can't measure what they'd add to that.

Huh, so it really is 8". The side-by-side picture was misleading to me. Nevertheless, if the russ is 4.5" and the Malcador is 8" I would not increase its length past 5.5" or 6".

aka_mythos wrote:

Ironhide wrote:What are ya'll talking about trench rails? Are ya'll commenting on the stabilizers on the back of the Malcador?

Here... fourth picture down: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/lrupgrades.htm
The Malcador has them: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/malclc.htm
They were a common retro-fit addition to armored vehicles in areas where alot of trenches were dug. They prevent the rear of the tank from crashing into the trench. In all practicality though they were mostly common on mid-sized tanks.

Trench Crossing
Specifically developed during World War I.
History

(of the tank, and some of trench crossing)

Huh. I thought they were stabilizers for when the main gun fired on the Malcador. Kinda like how a present-day Paladin has.

Waitaminute, that doesn't fit though. There should be some kind of guide rails for the front of the tank also. How else is it supposed to be sure it has lined up with the rails?

Ironhide wrote:Huh. I thought they were stabilizers for when the main gun fired on the Malcador. Kinda like how a present-day Paladin has.

Waitaminute, that doesn't fit though. There should be some kind of guide rails for the front of the tank also. How else is it supposed to be sure it has lined up with the rails?

There were different sorts of crossing devices, the ones most commonly seen on WWI brit tanks was rails that ran the length of the tank. On these there would be a "bale" of wood, which would be dropped into the trench so that the tank could cross safely. Rails at the rear were another version of this.

Ironhide wrote:How else is it supposed to be sure it has lined up with the rails?

All the trench rails do is when the back of the tank moves over a trench, instead of falling in, the trench rails prevent it from doing so until the treads have cleared the trench.

ph34r wrote:

Ironhide wrote:How else is it supposed to be sure it has lined up with the rails?

All the trench rails do is when the back of the tank moves over a trench, instead of falling in, the trench rails prevent it from doing so until the treads have cleared the trench.

Until the tank's center of gravity has passed over the opposite edge, to be precise. Which can be counteracted by digging wider trenches, which is what the Germans did in WW1, which led to the British designing even longer tanks (the ill-fated 'Tadpole' upgrade which was so long it had turning problems).

I thought they used fascines to overcome those problems.

Those only get you so far. It was alot of back and forth, anytime someone figured away through or across the trenches the other side would redesign to make it difficult. Ultimately it came down to building smaller more robust tanks that simply had enough engine power to pull themselves up and out of the trenches.

Sorry about going off-topic on this, it's just the first I heard of trench rails. Did they have another name? Does anyone have a linky to more info on their use during the WW1?

Out of curiosity so i dont have to make a separate thread ,
which Leman Russ are best for their point, and which are worse?

I assembled an exterminator but sort of regretting it atm.

There is a simple and not so simple answer to that question Lunahound. What it comes down to is how you intend to use your tanks. IMO the Leman Russ Battle Tank and Leman Russ Demolisher are best in general and will function consistently for their point worth in most every game; thats the simple answer.

More complicated answer is that the other Leman Russ variants are more specialized and are intended to deal with specific sorts of problems. Some are easily worth their points others require more effort to break even. The exterminator is a good tank and worth its points, at the same cost as a basic Leman Russ, I've found it excels with dealing with Monstrous Creatures and targets that you want to multiple hard hits into, it also out ranges all but the battle tank and vanquisher. I play against Nid's often these do wonders.

It will ultimately come down to what you're going up against but in general I'd rank them best to worse:
1) Battle Tank
2) Demolisher
3) Exterminator
4) Eradicator
5) Executioner
6) Punisher
7) Vanquisher

Executioner is going to be the standard for metagames, because they beat many of the top-tier lists. Nob Bikers only get their 4+ cover save against it, Plague Marines don't get FNP, +1 toughness, or their 3+ armour save, obliterators only have their 5+ invulnerable, DPs only have 5+ invulnerable, Eldar just get mowed down like crazy due to instant death and no armour saves, and most Marine lists will get screwed over because they have no possible armour saves either, which is one of their big strengths.

The executioner is the best tank for its points. With plasma sponsons, you get 5 S7 AP2 blast shots per tank. Sheer cruelty.

Sheer cruelty of point cost... IG are about numbers and expendability anything that is almost as much as a Land Raider isn't that. If I go up against a Space Marine or MEQ equivalent who aren't smart enough to take it out turn one they deserve to lose, and if they do take it out turn one I'm out 1/8th of my force.

Two fully equipped Executioners cost as much as three basic Leman Russ Battle tanks. The three russes give the enemy more targets and make it that much harder to lose your asset.

Like all things there is a way to use it. It all comes down to pairing up Executioners with expendable leman russ variants.

IG are about numbers and expendability

The Armoured Company would like a word with you.

Ironhide wrote:Huh. I thought they were stabilizers for when the main gun fired on the Malcador. Kinda like how a present-day Paladin has.

Waitaminute, that doesn't fit though. There should be some kind of guide rails for the front of the tank also.

Rear stabilizers typically take the form of either an articulated rear dozer blade, or else a purpose-designed stablizer spade. A pair of little rails simply won't cut it against any heavy artillery recoil - one will likely cut its way down into the ground, rather than transferring the recoil impact into the earth, resulting in a imbalance in stabilization rates, causing the hull to shift unevenly. That is why recoil stabilers are large, round / rectangular objects to spread the energy over as large an area as possible.

The front tracks serve as the forward guide rails. That is why, if you look at a WW1 British Mk.V tank, the front tracks run up to the full height of the hull, and extend well past the foremost point of the hull body. By elongating the forward track this way, not only does it go forward past the far edge of the trench, it can pull the tank up the rear edge where it makes contact. This is ehnanced by having an angled front plate not unlike a naval wash plate, to help direct the hull of the tank up and over obstacles. The current Russ fails badly by having a large flat box at the front of the tank that serves both as a shot trap and also as something to hang the tank up on.

The trench rails in the rear simply prevent the tank from falling into the trench by supporting the rear of the tank - it's OK that it drags a bit when crossing, as it doesn't add drag in ordinary use.

____

aka_mythos wrote:The thing to remember is the real issue with the size of tracks is about weight distribution. It doesn't matter how wide or long your tracks are its more about their surface contact with relation to your center of gravity.

If one were to demand a fluffy reason for Malcadors utilizing the same tracks as a Leman Russ, it could be a supply chain issue;

That assumes perfectly flat ground with uniform density. If the ground isn't even, then the track will start to dig. When that happens, the tank is, to some extent cutting through, rather than riding over.

The other problem with long skinny tracks is that the turning circle becomes a problem. So fatter track is an advantage.

If one were to look at the Mk.V, which is optimzed for this kind of running, the track width is somewhere between 40% and 50% of the total hull width. This allows for better weight distribution, while still retaining a more reasonable turning radius. The Baneblade and Land Raider are both good examples in this regard, in helping to ensure that the tank goes over rough / soft ground.

Ironhide wrote:Sorry about going off-topic on this, it's just the first I heard of trench rails. Did they have another name? Does anyone have a linky to more info on their use during the WW1?

They were not that common of a solution, I understand. The British preferred to build their tanks long and narrow to get the same effect, and the Germans... well, the A7V wasn't going to cross any trenches ever, being boxy and top-heavy. The Russians went sort of insane and tried producing the Lebedenko Wheel Tank. The most prominent trench rail user was probably the French FT-17, which was built in great numbers and survived in operational use all the way to WW2.



As you can see, on such a short vehicle, the rear skid adds significant length while probably saving quite a bit of weight, and still maintaining a smaller operational silhouette.

Thanks Ag.

Understood John. As I stated in a post after that one, I hadn't heard of trench rails before.

I would assume trench rails would only work if the tank took the trench head on, because it would seem if it went diagonally it would fall on one side. Actually, if one of those trench rails hit a soft patch of dirt while crossing, that could make it tip on its side also. It's not like trench warfare is used that much anymore. Thank god.

aka_mythos wrote:The thing to remember is the real issue with the size of tracks is about weight distribution. It doesn't matter how wide or long your tracks are its more about their surface contact with relation to your center of gravity.

If one were to demand a fluffy reason for Malcadors utilizing the same tracks as a Leman Russ, it could be a supply chain issue;

That assumes perfectly flat ground with uniform density. If the ground isn't even, then the track will start to dig. When that happens, the tank is, to some extent cutting through, rather than riding over.

The other problem with long skinny tracks is that the turning circle becomes a problem. So fatter track is an advantage.

If one were to look at the Mk.V, which is optimized for this kind of running, the track width is somewhere between 40% and 50% of the total hull width. This allows for better weight distribution, while still retaining a more reasonable turning radius. The Baneblade and Land Raider are both good examples in this regard, in helping to ensure that the tank goes over rough / soft ground.

Enough that this thread would get very long if everyone were to reply individually with 'I would'

Some aspiring person could probably make a small amount of money selling 'tank treads' that were designed to fit 'no particularly popular scifi tank that may start with L and rhyme with Neeman Ross'

Ironhide wrote:Understood John. As I stated in a post after that one, I hadn't heard of trench rails before.

I would assume trench rails would only work if the tank took the trench head on,

Yeah, trench warfare just isn't something that we do anymore, and trench rails are a one-off for that, so no surprise that you (or most others) wouldn't know them.

Also, you're absolutely correct that trench crossing is done at right angles when possible, for exactly the reasons you suggest. But, as those tanks moved at walking speed, it wasn't too hard to line up the crossing nicely.
____

aka_mythos wrote:Imperial technology doesn't always make sense.

Imperial tactics generally assume a wall of tanks moving across the battlefields,

I understand the advantages of fatter tracks, but the advantage of longer tracks is that they allow the vehicle to traverse trenches and not need trench rails. I'm not denying the benefits of wider tracks, it just depends on the priority of your tanks purpose.

Ultimately this brings us to the failure of the Leman Russ' design because either approach or design emphasis aren't followed through with. I agree with your assessment. My point was one change or the other would make it look more realistic enough but I agree having both would be preferred.

If we assume the same basic primary hull the Leman Russ would need each track widened by 50% and the track assembly stretched by about an inch.


Out of curiosity, how many people would be interested in a set of track and track wheels that much wider? Something like that'd be easy enough to draw up in CAD, prototyped and have cast in resin.

Oh, totally agreed that Imperial techology doesn't make sense - it's post-Technological mysticism that makes this stuff "work".

Assuming that the tank is long enough, and space exists in the layout, I'd start long and go as wide as possible - it doesn't hurt performance as you simply load the tracks less, allowing for even better performance in soft ground / mud / sand. Plus, it looks better.

IMO, the Russ design was about as good as would be possible 10+ years ago, when no wargames had Tanks to speak of, much less purpose-designed plastic Tanks. But the design is very much flawed and has aged poorly, and has much room for improvement.

I'd still like a larger primary hull a la Mars Alpha, as it makes sense for having stowage space for ammo and full crew (commander, driver, gunner, & loader), along wtih space for sponson gunners / radioman. It doesn't need to be a huge box like an A7, but more space would help. But yeah, widen the track by 50+% (I'd prefer +75%), while keeping the hull width the same, and that'd be a huge help.


The track & wheel thing would probably go quite well, but at that point, you might as well do the turret & hull, too.

Yeah, trench warfare just isn't something that we do anymore, and trench rails are a one-off for that, so no surprise that you (or most others) wouldn't know them.

Also, you're absolutely correct that trench crossing is done at right angles when possible, for exactly the reasons you suggest. But, as those tanks moved at walking speed, it wasn't too hard to line up the crossing nicely.

Makes you wonder why they still practice trench warfare in the far future.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Out of curiosity, how many people would be interested in a set of track and track wheels that much wider? Something like that'd be easy enough to draw up in CAD, prototyped and have cast in resin.

Oh, totally agreed that Imperial techology doesn't make sense - it's post-Technological mysticism that makes this stuff "work".


I'd still like a larger primary hull a la Mars Alpha, as it makes sense for having stowage space for ammo and full crew (commander, driver, gunner, & loader), along wtih space for sponson gunners / radioman. It doesn't need to be a huge box like an A7, but more space would help. But yeah, widen the track by 50+% (I'd prefer +75%), while keeping the hull width the same, and that'd be a huge help.


The track & wheel thing would probably go quite well, but at that point, you might as well do the turret & hull, too.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The track & wheel thing would probably go quite well, but at that point, you might as well do the turret & hull, too.

Now if you went ot the length of redesigning the external side plate with the details, then it'd be worth going the full distance of a more extensive redesign.

Oh, I thought by "track and wheel", you mean to replace the entire assembly, including the side plates.

FWIW, with my Russ-based SPGs, the side plates w/ wheel & tracks are the only things I keep intact from the original tank for the link back to the 40k Imperial Guard. If I had a reliable source of fairly-priced tracks to work with, I'd have gone FSB a long time ago.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Russ does not use the same suspension system we are familiar with on modern tanks?

Here's what I mean. Modern vehicles have suspension systems that support the entire body of the vehicle above the wheels, with the track system designed to give under pressure in order to provide a smoother ride over rough terrain. What if the Russ had a suspension system where only the actual central hull of the tank was suspended on some sort of spring system, while the entire track and armor plate setup was independent and free-floating? The engine would need to be independent with the track in order to provide the torque, but given that all the vehicles in DoW only have their central section bounce up and down, is it all that hard to imagine?

I know it's a really bass-ackwards way of creating suspension for your tank, but hey, it is one possible explanation amongst many. That's my two cents, anyway.

CK

Corpsman of Krieg you do have a point with that. Being Sci-Fi any number of explanation could be made on how it functions. Earlier on in this thread I tried to point out that we don't really know too much of how it works.

aka_mythos wrote:Corpsman of Krieg you do have a point with that. Being Sci-Fi any number of explanation could be made on how it functions. Earlier on in this thread I tried to point out that we don't really know too much of how it works.

We don't but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. Especially considering the fact that the bolter sponsons are integrated into the interior of the vehicle and are manned by people that don't live in the pontoons stuck to the side of the talltank. Also it wouldn't matter much, the russ doesn't have much ground clearance and suspension actuated at the hip rather than on the track itself wouldn't serve to do much other than cause the vehicle to be very unstable on rocky terrain. The benefit of track based shock systems is the fact that they handle bumps individually per drive wheel, what Corpsman explained would be worse than driving around a four wheeled vehicle.

The crux of the issue here isn't what justification there is for why the russ doesn't work. None of it works. Its a bad design by a man who didn't know much about tanks based off an era of tanks where the tank designers that made real tanks also didn't know much about tanks.

The problem with world war one tanks is that they are stupid, non funcitonal, low tech, and were designed for little other than to be moving boxes of metal with five guys inside manning machine guns. That doesn't translate well into a sci fi setting, especially when the designer in the sci fi setting doesn't know how things like gun mounts and shock absorbers work.





Mythos you have given a dozen examples of tanks with features similar to the russ. The common issue with all these tank designs though is that they were generally jokes. Unsuccessful designs from a period of warfare where the concepts of mechanized battle were still new. There's a reason the german blitz didn't have toy tonka tanks with giant wide sponsons and stupid retractable ball mounts. Because those things don't work in mechanized warfare and have no realistic use. Theres a reason why tanks look the way they do today. That has less to do with technology and more to do with an understanding of the basic concepts of mechanized warfare and how to design vehicles. Whenever you deviate from those basic principles for any reason, you end up with a design that looks awkward. The eldar get around this by having crazy floaty tanks. So do everyone else really. The imperium doesn't have the luxury of orkiness or gundamtanks. They are human, they should have human looking tanks.

The leman russ looks stupid, it doesn't logically work, and a total revision of its design would be required for it to function in any way that is logical or sensible.

^ QFT.

ShumaGorath wrote:Especially considering the fact that the bolter sponsons are integrated into the interior of the vehicle and are manned by people that don't live in the pontoons stuck to the side of the talltank.

The old Land Raider had an interior cut away picture that showed exactly that. emote operated by a marine riding inside the track housing.

ShumaGorath wrote:Also it wouldn't matter much, the russ doesn't have much ground clearance

The leman Russ has plenty of ground clearance. Stick an unbased guardsmen next the tank. The clearance comes upto his knee, about 1 3/4 feet. An Abrams Tank has just over a 1 1/2feet of clearance. I'm not saying GW's scaling is perfect but if you think its too bad to make this comparison, ground clearance should be the least of your worries.

ShumaGorath wrote: ...suspension actuated at the hip rather than on the track itself wouldn't serve to do much other than cause the vehicle to be very unstable on rocky terrain. The benefit of track based shock systems is the fact that they handle bumps individually per drive wheel, what Corpsman explained would be worse than driving around a four wheeled vehicle.

You're making assumptions that it'd a function as a single point of contact as opposed to multi-degree of freedom harmonic oscillator with a computer controlled damper.

I don't believe it works this way but his speculation is as abstract as yours. This is science fiction and worse ideas than that have come out of science fiction. No need to criticize.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The crux of the issue here isn't what justification there is for why the russ doesn't work. None of it works. Its a bad design by a man who didn't know much about tanks based off an era of tanks where the tank designers that made real tanks also didn't know much about tanks.

My point is its only bad if you make the assumption that it functions identically to a tank from the WWI era.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The problem with world war one tanks is that they are stupid, non funcitonal, low tech, and were designed for little other than to be moving boxes of metal with five guys inside manning machine guns.

How articulate... WWI tanks had intelligence? Then how can they be stupid? Non-functional? Then how did they drive around firing cannons and transporting troops? Low tech, only by comparison of today. Technology is relative, to a cave man it'd be divine. A "moving box of metal," how is that different from today? We use better materials and better designs, but they're still basically metal boxes moving man and weapon around the battlefield.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Mythos you have given a dozen examples of tanks with features similar to the russ. The common issue with all these tank designs though is that they were generally jokes.

No, they were a natural technological progression to what came before them.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Unsuccessful designs from a period of warfare where the concepts of mechanized battle were still new.

But they were successful. If they hadn't been as successful as they were they wouldn't have forced an arms race. The tactics were more unsuccessful then the vehicles.

ShumaGorath wrote:
There's a reason the german blitz didn't have toy tonka tanks with giant wide sponsons

Mostly it was due to tactical developments. Germans at the start favored lighter and faster tanks, which by late war were under armed and under armored. They also broke up the purpose of vehicles, rather than having a single vehicle fight anti-vehicle and anti-personnel they had several specialized vehicles. That concept is a bit counterpoint to the concept of a main battle tank.

ShumaGorath wrote:stupid retractable ball mounts.

Yes because insulting everyone else's ideas are easier when you have none of your own. Once again your articulation amazes me.
Ball mounts have a higher degree of freedom and ability to quickly aim, a weakness of the sponson. Combined with a remote gunnery system and it would reduce the space needed for the gun. The retractability allows it to be stowed for when the vehicle must quickly maneuver or be transported. That to me solves all the problems of sponsons. So if you can have the added weapons, wouldn't you want them?

ShumaGorath wrote:Because those things don't work in mechanized warfare and have no realistic use.

Yes obviously they didn't make it to modern times, but that was due to technological limitations, that prevented them from solving the short comings of those systems.

ShumaGorath wrote: Theres a reason why tanks look the way they do today. That has less to do with technology and more to do with an understanding of the basic concepts of mechanized warfare and how to design vehicles. Whenever you deviate from those basic principles for any reason, you end up with a design that looks awkward... They are human, they should have human looking tanks.

It has everything to do technology. If you took modern concepts of tanks back to WWI, you couldn't build something that resembles a modern tank. I'm sure the Imperiums engin(s)eers have the same problem. In WWI, they considered mounting guns in turrets, the problem was they could not build chassis strong enough to support the added weight to the roof until late into the war. Even when that problem was solved low profile turrets didn't come around till the 70's because the technology wasn't their to make equipment compact enough to compact the turret.
WWI tanks were human tanks.

The deviation from basic principles is partially whats driven development. In the future we will have robot tanks, and there is little reason they'll need to build the same way. The will be generally expendable, such that certain principles of survivability are secondary to battle field dominance. Or more automated tanks that have the turret and gunnery system automated to that none of the crew are in the turret, once again that would change the look. So while you can preach the all guiding principal that takes us to a modern tank is perfect, don't assume it functions outside the bounds of technology.

ShumaGorath wrote:The leman russ looks stupid, it doesn't logically work, and a total revision of its design would be required for it to function in any way that is logical or sensible.

No $hi+! Thats what this whole thread is about. The point alot of these tangents are about are that Imperial tanks are not modern tanks. That they really shouldn't be. So if you really want to contribute and detract propose some ideas and not just smash on everyone elses.

Areas in need of improvement:
-track and suspension
-reasonable turret and cannon proportions
-ways of representing sponson weapons
-general foot print area

Can I just say something mythos.

You critisize Shumagorath's argument about technology by saying "technology is RELATIVE".

Then say WW1 tanks weren't jokes. Well yes they are by your very own argument. In terms of the tank as we see one today ie. relatively, the WW1 tanks were jokes. just as, in terms of technology, the very first cars were jokes (I'm talking first first cars here). Yes they were amazing at the time ("wow, a thing with wheels that powers itself, crikey Jeeves we'd beeter get ourselves one of those") but compared to the car as it is nowadays, they were jokes.

I'm going to have to agree with both of you though overall. We are looking at a time when the "secrets" of technology are kept hidden by what are essentially half machine, religious fanatics. Who knows what goes on.

But the LR is rediculous. It's needed a redsign since before I can remember my holidays. Especially for a society that has supposedly advanced technology (how old is Eisenhorn?).

In terms of design ideas, a brinign in line is what is desperately needed. The LR looks out of place when compared to the comparatively sleek and sexy BB and Macha. A much bigger turret is a must. Personally i think the Demolisher should be reduced to having a hull mountie. Sponsoons should be replaced wih co-axial guns. I've never liked sponsoons, silly things stuck on the side that they are.

In terms of overall Guard vehicles I'd like to see a bit more variation overall. Enough Chimera and LR chassis based vehicles. They're geting boring. How about some armoured cars, halftracks. How about a light tank (so us Blood PAct players can take a proper representation of the AT70), maybe making the LR a heavy tank (hence making the whole thing more WW2ish, which is where I think GW have always tried to stab it). More variation people. I know you can use counts as, but what about actual rules for an armoured car with a small turret (Lascannon + heavy bolter??), that can be para'd onto the battlefield?

Meta.

meta-ridley wrote:Can I just say something mythos.

You critisize Shumagorath's argument about technology by saying "technology is RELATIVE".

Then say WW1 tanks weren't jokes. Well yes they are by your very own argument. In terms of the tank as we see one today ie. relatively, the WW1 tanks were jokes. just as, in terms of technology, the very first cars were jokes (I'm talking first first cars here). Yes they were amazing at the time ("wow, a thing with wheels that powers itself, crikey Jeeves we'd beeter get ourselves one of those") but compared to the car as it is nowadays, they were jokes.

Let me quote myself...

aka_mythos wrote:Low tech, only by comparison of today. Technology is relative, to a cave man it'd be divine.

My point was that technology has a relationship to the time it was made. That it is my opinion you must compare it within the context of that time frame. It is that "relation" that is relative, as in related and connected.

Your making a semantic argument, most likely due out of confusion. The juxtaposition was intended to show how it is silly to make statements that a whole period of design is without merits.

With in their historic context WWI tanks were not jokes, they were dangerous killing machines, moving fortifications. Within the minimally related context of today, they are low tech, but were of the highest tech at their time. But it is that "relationship" to their time that made the WWI era tanks mark on history.

meta-ridley wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with both of you though overall. We are looking at a time when the "secrets" of technology are kept hidden by what are essentially half machine, religious fanatics. Who knows what goes on....

Exactly. I'm not saying WWI designs are the end all be all. I've just been trying to get people to toss idea around without calling ideas stupid. The imagery of the Imperium in 40k is this blending of colonial Europe with bits of old and new technology; a balancing act of the old and new order. The best way to think of it is, how would you assemble modern technology, even with a blue print, in the past.

Even if you gave a early 20th century General the blueprints for an Abrams battle tank and a manual on the tactics to employ it he would not be able to use it as is. He would have to adapt aspects of it. Rivets instead of welds, steel instead of chobim armor, fixed guns instead of turrets, a slower cruising speed, a larger crew. Thats the 40k universe... less sophisticated people trying to replicate significantly more advanced technology than they understand.

The most powerful tanks are 1000's of years old. The space marines' tanks are built by a mysterious STC machine, where you dump materials in and out pops a rhino. Imperial Guard tanks are what the Imperium can build with the best of their understanding of old technology. Reverse engineered weapons built only with the Imperiums current understanding of technology and not the pinnacle of technology humanity used to have. The original design for the Leman Russ probably had many fewer rivets and resembled a space marine tank more than its current incarnation.

meta-ridley wrote:But the LR is rediculous. It's needed a redsign since before I can remember my holidays. Especially for a society that has supposedly advanced technology (how old is Eisenhorn?).

I realize it is... thats why I started a thread to discuss how it should change or be redesigned. The point of my tirade on ShumaGorath was that he shot down a number of ideas without adding his own to the discussion. That my remarks on WWI was intended to point out how some of the design aspects weren't bad, they were just the result of technological limitations and that at the time they were the best that could be done.

Example, in 40k the imperium obviously doesn't have the ability to produce the really large low profile turrets, we have today, thus they can not mount their anti-personnel suppressive fire weapons on the top of the turret. So what option does that leave you if you believe its a necessity? Sponson mounted or co-axial mounted weapons or something else.

There is also the aspects of some technologies being more advanced than others. Within the Imperium not all areas of technology have necessarily been studied evenly. Point is just because it makes sense to us, realize that modern vehicles and technology do as a result of the sum total of all the technologies that went into them; if you remove a single technology from that collection you change how technology manifests itself. A car looks the way it does because of the newer manufacturing methods, the aerodynamic studies, the development of alloys and other materials; if in the 80's companies didn't invest in aluminum manufacturing, computer design, robotic assembly, and wind tunnels and gages the modern car would not look like it does today.

The Imperium is that time and place where certain technological linchpins have bin removed. They obviously don't know how to weld. The vast majority of vehicle construction is overseen by "guild" type priest hood who despite their meticulousness add probably add inconsistency to vehicles such that not all the parts of every Chimera are interchangeable with every other Chimera. Its those things that are easy to take for granted, but are an important aspect to the Imperiums character.

meta-ridley wrote:In terms of design ideas, a brining in line is what is desperately needed. The LR looks out of place when compared to the comparatively sleek and sexy BB and Macha. A much bigger turret is a must. Personally i think the Demolisher should be reduced to having a hull mounted. Sponsons should be replaced with co-axial guns. I've never liked sponsons, silly things stuck on the side that they are.

I agree, for the most part. The Leman Russ needs to look like it fits in with Baneblade. I think the macharius is the ideal look, though it should be scaled down in size in an appropriate way since it'd have less in the turret... turret comes down in size the chassis comes down in size so as to maintain the proportions.

(For the sake of avoiding confusion, I will use the terminology like GW does, since GW refers to them like this: Co-axial = aligned parallel to the main cannon; Pintle mounted = on the turret like a gunners nest;

I think it makes sense that the sponson weapons could be moved up to the top of the tank into pintle mounted positions with the the front sponson moved to a co-axial position.

While I think it makes perfect sense to do that (as I said some posts ago), I think sponsons are an aspect of the leman russ' identity. That redesigning them to be less obtrusive would be preferred to outright removing them. Imagine something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jagdpanzer38.jpg
With this things turret and a pair of its front hull machine guns mounted to the sloped armor of the first vehicle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SdKfz182.jpg
Imagine them scaled up, riveted to some degree. You'd have something in between the extremes of a full blown shift from WWI style to modern.

Even the macharius has more sensible sponsons than the leman russ. Just maintaining those macharian sponsons on a scaled down macharius would maintain the identity of the Leman Russ better.

Point is there are some shades of gray between between Imperial WWI aesthetic and full blown modernized look.

meta-ridley wrote:
In terms of overall Guard vehicles I'd like to see a bit more variation overall. Enough Chimera and LR chassis based vehicles. They're geting boring. How about some armoured cars, halftracks. How about a light tank (so us Blood PAct players can take a proper representation of the AT70), maybe making the LR a heavy tank (hence making the whole thing more WW2ish, which is where I think GW have always tried to stab it). More variation people. I know you can use counts as, but what about actual rules for an armoured car with a small turret (Lascannon + heavy bolter??), that can be para'd onto the battlefield?
Meta.

I'm all for armored cars and jeeps type vehicles the half track might "tread" too much on the orks. Thats not to say it shouldn't be done, just cautiously so. Light tanks would also be good. I do think the worry their is in maintaining the uniqueness of light tanks and sentinels since from a fluff perspective sentinels fill that role (not necessarily well enough). Make them have different weapon options, make the light tank fast but vulnerable to terrain and then maybe there would be enough distinction.