As an amateur student of armored warfare this has been bugging me for a very long time now.

The leman russ is possibly one of the worst designed AFV's I've ever seen.

Its incredibly high, meaning it would be quite difficult to go hull down in it. The sides are flat and huge, you would hardly bounce anyhting. Gun depression would be awful due to the location of the hull mount. The turret is tiny, barely looks like it would fit the commander. Tracks also are too thin, meaning poor cross country performance. To top it all off, there's too much "stuff" on the hull front, leading to shot traps.

So, how in gods name did anyone think this was a good design?

Welcome to 40k. It is a science-fiction hobby where realism was left at the door.

DarknessEternal wrote:Welcome to 40k. It is a science-fiction hobby where realism was left at the door.

*Points at*
-Elves in SPAAAAAAAAAACE
-Orcs in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE
-Daemons in SPAAAAAAAAAACE
-The fact that swords are still considered viable in combat
-Space Marines that can't move in their armor
-Every single thing basically forever in 40k

And we get hung up on the Russ?

Leman Russ Battle Tank is protected by grimdark. That is all.

Warhammer 40k. The only place where there can be evil elves and demons and dare I say it...Squats? Running around and one thing we can't even fathom is the horrible design of the Leman Russ.

I fall guilty of worrying about something that doesn't make sense in the GRIMDARK sometimes too.

Warhammer 40,000: Where World War I tactics and vehicle designs reign supreme, despite being the worst tactics and vehicle designs ever. In the history of the planet Earth.

It's based on a real life tank.

The WW1 emhar mark 4...




...with a turret.

You'd think they might go with something a bit better than ww1 tech level in the 41st millennium, but like others have said you can't read into it too much. Even the likes of Jules Verne's science fiction falls apart under close scrutiny...and he actually tried.

I love when realism is discussed. Better as Tzeentch as I'm sure as God of Lore etc he'd know!

I'm not sure what you're using for a reference, a model? Actual text from a fluff source? A picture?

Fluff wise LR's outlast most of the other vehicles in whatever army/unit they happen to be in. So, worst AFV ever designed? Clearly not.

As for practical use? Seeing as how the engine can run off of wood if need be, it's point-defense weapons are small-rocket-launching machine guns, and it's capable of use a giant laser to kill other tanks...I can't really comment.

In comparison to say a Merkava or Abrams, or even a T-90 I can agree with you that the profile is odd. Then again, a LR is a jack of all trades. It has close-support variants in the Demolisher and Eradicator. Anti-armor with the standard LBRT and Vanquisher. Purely anti-personnel with the auto cannon variant and Punisher.

Also, check the new models for the LR's. They're flatter and wider. Much more akin to a modern day tank than it's previous incarnation.

Check the "digital sculpting blog" link in my sig for my take on what the leman russ should have looked like (WIP).

Frankenberry wrote:I'm not sure what you're using for a reference, a model? Actual text from a fluff source? A picture?

Fluff wise LR's outlast most of the other vehicles in whatever army/unit they happen to be in. So, worst AFV ever designed? Clearly not.

As for practical use? Seeing as how the engine can run off of wood if need be, it's point-defense weapons are small-rocket-launching machine guns, and it's capable of use a giant laser to kill other tanks...I can't really comment.

In comparison to say a Merkava or Abrams, or even a T-90 I can agree with you that the profile is odd. Then again, a LR is a jack of all trades. It has close-support variants in the Demolisher and Eradicator. Anti-armor with the standard LBRT and Vanquisher. Purely anti-personnel with the auto cannon variant and Punisher.

Also, check the new models for the LR's. They're flatter and wider. Much more akin to a modern day tank than it's previous incarnation.

He's commenting on how bad the design is, and that there is a reason that design is no longer used in modern day militaries. It sucks. Hard. Not because it looks wierd, but because of how flat and square it is.

Take a solid square of steel to a shooting range. Shoot it. The bullet will shatter against it, but notice how the plate took the brunt of the force. Every single ounce of energy went straight into the steel plate.

Now take another plate with the exact same thickness and other dimensions, but fold it into a V-shape. Set the V up so that the bottom sharp edge is facing you. Now shoot it. The bullet will either strike the sharp edge (splitting in half and doing no damage, dispersing energy along the edge of the V), or it will strike the top or bottom and be deflected up or down, with minimal energy striking the steel.

That is why the LR sucks and why the Imperium is dumb for having it, even if it is made of the best materials in existence. Yeah, it works, but it could be so muc better.

EmilCrane wrote:The turret is tiny, barely looks like it would fit the commander.

Let alone the breech, or gunner. The gun itself is too large to logically fit the turret (considering it is only supposed to be the size of a regular modern tank main gun (120mm or so).

The forces generated by recoil on that gun would shear the turret off the hull mount.

Out of all tank designs in the Imperium, the largest and most "famous" compared to the Russ is the Baneblade.

its the most "Modern Tank-Like" would of the Lot dispite its massive size and excess weapons, with independant suspension, large enough turret and all, but of course is as impractical as the russ due to its trade mark size, including its off center turret placement, granted its size and weight would be offset by a futuristic and powerful engine, its size means "shoot me" of course but has its futuristic armor composition to fall back on, but again there are things built to kill it and defeat that armor.

The scale works against the practicallity of the designs. the models of course can't fit their crew/passengers, i remember seeing a picture with a to scale Leman Russ with the tansk commander standing next to it. to say that the Russ was towering over him was an understatment. I don't want to imagine how big a Baneblade would be to proper scale.


But in the end, its sci-fi, its fiction. They are not supposed to be practical in design, only look cool and kick butt while looking cool. Not be so practical they would function in reality.

The Mammoth Tank from Tiberium or even the Scorpion Tank from Halo makes more sense then a Russ, but they both serve the same purpose. Look awesome while dishing out massive amount of punishment to targets that are as fictional as they are. (Ork in SPAAAAAAACE, or.... whatever in space)

personally the design of the Chernovan tank from "Warhawk" would be a good design for a Leman Russ, Room for a hullmounted Lascannon, sponsons, and large enough turret that it makes sense



dam... now i want to build a Chernovan tank in place of a Leman Russ.

It looks cool,

The turret is ridiculous.

I raised this once and it provoked nerd rage from someone citing a cutaway drawing that was obviously not to scale; it's possible to draw a tribar,

Fair enough. The LR is a stupid design.

Now for the obligatory...

"Orks in spaaaaaace!".

I've commented on the flaws in the predator's design as well (boxy sides, still tall, MASSIVE shot trap under the manlet)

But at least that workable, it looks like it can fit its crew, and like shells can at least bounce off the front, its very much like the ww2 panther

Don't stop with the Leman Russ
I want a detailed analysis of every 40k vehicle, Imperial or otherwise.
tia

40k, where realisticness dies a gory death.

I hate it when people do this.

Imperial tanks are in a period where humanity can't make new designs or even build certain war machines, 40k exists in a WW1 status where troops run at each other hoping for the best, not modern warfare.

But too be honest, you may be trolling if you do think Sci-fi involving Daemons, Orks, Elves, Squats, Space Marines, Necrons etc. needs to be realistic, you probably are.

I always interpreted the vehicle models as being caricatures of the actual tanks, much like heroic scale with the infantry. The leman russ probably has suspension, the model just doesn't so that it's easy to assemble. Rhinos can fit their passengers, the model is just small for playabilty.

I always thought the silliest thing about the Leman Russ design is that it uses riveted armor in the 41st millenium. For reference, most first-rate military powers started using welded steel in World War 2.

But, whatever, it's flavor, and like another poster mentioned, it's basically stylized after a World War I-era British tank. By contrast, the Baneblade looks much more modern, with its squatter frame and angled front glacis. It's just art. It doesn't have to make sense, I guess.

The greatest enemy of the Imperium of Man is not Chaos nor Xenos but its collective stupidity.

sure its not the most efficent design but remember most of them were just meant to be tractor units turned tanks (looking back at the old STC lore) that effectivly work in any enviroment of any fuel source cheap and easy to build with no mind for comfort or perticular saftey for the pilots and gunners, but like i said the most important part is there cheap and easy to produce and loosing 5 (with sponsons) personal each time a tanks destroyed out of billions doesnt really bother the imperium :3 bullet trap or not

As Clumpski said just above - what we now know as the Leman Russ was not designed from the ground up as an MBT. The STC the Russ is based upon was originally an all purpose tractor unit. (Possibly an incomplete STC? This is quite old fluff I believe, and I can't remember the source off the top of my head) Because the IoM doesn't like inventing things from scratch; they used this existing STC and modified it to create a mass-produced tank that could fill most of the roles required that would otherwise be fulfilled by a completely new vehicle.

As mentioned above; this is probably why the older Baneblade - which I believe was designed from the ground up as a tank - looks much more like a modern vehicle. It was designed as a tank with these thoughts in mind; and so makes a bit more sense ("more sense" is a relative term, obviously )

Another thing mentioned above as well; there is also the heroic scale of the models and vehicles to consider.

IMO WW1 style tanks look far more terrifying than modern tanks (in terms of the aesthetic, not the weaponry) and fit the grim dark setting of 40k better. One of the things which seperate 40k from other sci fi franchises is that they don't go along with the conventional image of the futuristic technology and instead take elements of it and mix it with gothic, baroque, medieval elements etc. With the exception of the tau that is, who are almost a cliche.

Yeah its a crappy design. But its better then the dumpsters that the space marines use. And if a rhino can carry 10 marines and a russ is bigger then it should be able to fit its weapons and crew. Also its still the best battle tank in the galaxy, so it has to be doing something right. But if it had proper designs it would be unstopable.

A leman russ isn't a tank, its a tractor with a turret. A baneblade is a tank.

The rivets protect them.

EmilCrane wrote:The sides are flat and huge, you would hardly bounce anyhting

Actually, sloped or curved sides would be a detriment when the opponent is firing down on the tank, such as an RPG wielder from as econd story windows.

Sure, a single leman russ on its own would likely get flanked. But when you have 10 of them, hurtling down a hill, side by side to cover each others side armor, good luck getting a hit off on it! Leman russ tanks are designed to be used together, rather than alone.

As has been noted, the main thing to remember about the Leman Russ and its ilk are that they are NOT MBTs, they are tractors with guns on them.

Most IoM vehicles are based off a LEGO philosophy that was the core of the STC system. Everything runs everywhere, run on anything, and can be easily combined. That is also why they are still using riveted, or at least bolted armor. The armor panel itself wasn't designed as "Leman Russ" armor, anymore than a 2x4 lego piece is designed to be a house support.

It is the same with most weaponry, like las cannons. It isn't designed to go on any given tank, it can be placed on ANY STC mount of the proper type.

For the Imperium the Leman Russ is a great tank. No it isn't the most survivable, optimal design. That isn't its purpose. It doesn't operate alone, its not valuable, the lives of its crew are not valuable (this is a big point). It is simply a platform for guns used by a society scavenging for tech they don't understand.

It's cheap to produce.
But it runs anywhere and on anything.
It's cheap to produce.
It is much easier to maintain than actual, specialized battle tanks.
It's cheap to produce.

So the IG gets LOTS of easily maintainable, durable, throw-away vehicles. And that is usually what they want. It perfectly fits the IGs modus operandi, even though it wouldn't fit our own.

But there is another scenario to consider. Imagine you are in a mad-max/fallout style situation. You have little to no technical training, no supply line. Would you rather have a modern MBT or a Leman Russ? I'd choose the Leman Russ every time. Sure it might not perform as well as a specialized battle tank, but it will always perform, and I can fix it on my own. And often that is the exact situation the Imperium is in.

Now I'm not saying it is the most optimal design. I'm sure dark age humans could have devised a battle tank that had the durability, ease of manufacture, and ease of use of the Leman Russ but that was actually designed for war. But they didn't (or at least the IoM doesn't have the plans). That wasn't how they approached warfare.

So the IoM does the best with what they have. And what they have works pretty well for how they operate.

The Leman Russ isn't meant to be a state of the art well designed tank. It's just what the Imperium has.

EmilCrane wrote:As an amateur student of armored warfare this has been bugging me for a very long time now.

The leman russ is possibly one of the worst designed AFV's I've ever seen.

Its incredibly high, meaning it would be quite difficult to go hull down in it. The sides are flat and huge, you would hardly bounce anyhting. Gun depression would be awful due to the location of the hull mount. The turret is tiny, barely looks like it would fit the commander. Tracks also are too thin, meaning poor cross country performance. To top it all off, there's too much "stuff" on the hull front, leading to shot traps.

So, how in gods name did anyone think this was a good design?

And yet that tank is more then capable to blast into bits Necron, Eldar and Tau vehicles that are more tough and more advanced then our own MBT's.
Reality with logic and 40k don't go together occasionally.

Brother Coa wrote:

EmilCrane wrote:As an amateur student of armored warfare this has been bugging me for a very long time now.

The leman russ is possibly one of the worst designed AFV's I've ever seen.

Its incredibly high, meaning it would be quite difficult to go hull down in it. The sides are flat and huge, you would hardly bounce anyhting. Gun depression would be awful due to the location of the hull mount. The turret is tiny, barely looks like it would fit the commander. Tracks also are too thin, meaning poor cross country performance. To top it all off, there's too much "stuff" on the hull front, leading to shot traps.

So, how in gods name did anyone think this was a good design?

And yet that tank is more then capable to blast into bits Necron, Eldar and Tau vehicles that are more tough and more advanced then our own MBT's.
Reality with logic and 40k don't go together occasionally.

It has big guns. This has nothing to do with vehicle design, and is purely a matter of weaponry.

In the fluff IG vehicles don't usually do so well against Necron and Eldar vehicles. On tabletop eve grots and guardsman have a not inconsequential chance of taking down SM Chapter Masters and demon princes. It has to be that way for the tabletop game to work at all.

The fluff is 'usually' a bit more consistent. Usually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:
It has big guns. This has nothing to do with vehicle design, and is purely a matter of weaponry.

And this. As I mentioned before, the LR is just a platform for the IGs lego style weaponry system.

The Imperial Guard does not need, and indeed does not WANT, the highest-quality equipment they can find. What they want is equipment they can drag all over the universe, maltreat horrifically, throw into brutal firefights over and over, and be confident that it will function in practically any environment and be easy to fix when (not if) it breaks down.

The Leman Russ fulfills all of those requirements admirably. We honestly can't say anything about how durable it is or how powerful its weapons are, because we don't know how advanced materials science is in the 40k universe; but, at least relative to what it fights, the Leman Russ is slow but tough, powerful and long-lasting. It has a higher profile than a modern MBT, yes, but those high treads also (assuming a powerful enough engine) allow it to traverse steep slopes, particularly since it's also slightly lighter and wider than modern tanks. They also allow it to mount two heavy weapons on the front chassis instead of one.

It also has a number of HIGHLY valuable advantages. It's essentially the lasgun of armored vehicles; cheap, easy to make, works anywhere. You can run a Leman Russ's engine off anything from highly refined fuel to logs of wood. It's extremely modular, meaning you can adapt it rapidly to the specific conditions of whatever planet it needs to fight on. It has basic, time-proven weaponry that functions effectively under nearly all circumstances. It has integral life support systems, which indicates that when buttoned up it is airtight; you could drive a Leman Russ through clouds of poison gas or across the surface of an airless moon, and it would still work just fine.

The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

BeRzErKeR wrote:The Imperial Guard does not need, and indeed does not WANT, the highest-quality equipment they can find. What they want is equipment they can drag all over the universe, maltreat horrifically, throw into brutal firefights over and over, and be confident that it will function in practically any environment and be easy to fix when (not if) it breaks down.

The Leman Russ fulfills all of those requirements admirably. We honestly can't say anything about how durable it is or how powerful its weapons are, because we don't know how advanced materials science is in the 40k universe; but, at least relative to what it fights, the Leman Russ is slow but tough, powerful and long-lasting. It has a higher profile than a modern MBT, yes, but those high treads also (assuming a powerful enough engine) allow it to traverse steep slopes, particularly since it's also slightly lighter and wider than modern tanks. They also allow it to mount two heavy weapons on the front chassis instead of one.

It also has a number of HIGHLY valuable advantages. It's essentially the lasgun of armored vehicles; cheap, easy to make, works anywhere. You can run a Leman Russ's engine off anything from highly refined fuel to logs of wood. It's extremely modular, meaning you can adapt it rapidly to the specific conditions of whatever planet it needs to fight on. It has basic, time-proven weaponry that functions effectively under nearly all circumstances. It has integral life support systems, which indicates that when buttoned up it is airtight; you could drive a Leman Russ through clouds of poison gas or across the surface of an airless moon, and it would still work just fine.

And so say all of us!
Those that are whinging about the LRBT just wish they had some thing as cool and as awesome that has proven itself on thousands of worlds and millions of battles.
By the way I think is the Rino that was a tractor refitted and the LRBT has alwas been a tank, it was used in the grate crusade remember and tech back then wasn't as lost as it is now.

How is the turret too small?

Its about the same size as a 1/35 scale t-34 turret, and 1/35 scale is much bigger than the 28mm scale of the russ. and the t-34 fits two people not just one.

Ribon Fox wrote:

And so say all of us!
Those that are whinging about the LRBT just wish they had some thing as cool and as awesome that has proven itself on thousands of worlds and millions of battles.
By the way I think is the Rino that was a tractor refitted and the LRBT has alwas been a tank, it was used in the grate crusade remember and tech back then wasn't as lost as it is now.

Thousands of fake worlds, and millions of made-up battles.

By that logic, here, look at this rock. It is become Death, destroyer of worlds. A mere squeeze of the rock can massacre armies. A light toss can destroy worlds. If I were to break it, all of creation would cease to be, or have been, or will be.

Because that's the way I fething wrote it.

Ronin-Sage wrote:The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

Well...yes, GW is a miniature company, and the fluff merely exists to sell mini's. But you are on a fluff board, in a discussion about the fluff, and saying that fluff justifications shouldn't be brought into it? Doesn't that seem silly? We're here to discuss the fluff. Of course we are going to bring up the fluff.

And no one said they were mutually exclusive. No one is claiming the LR is the epitome of tank design, or even that it is GOOD tank design. We are pointing out that, from a fluff perspective, it is NOT a tank design. It's a tractor with guns strapped to it.

We are also pointing out that, while those flaws in design are indeed flaws, they just don't matter that much from an Imperial perspective. The tank continues to be used because survivability is not something the IG cares about, ease of manufacture and maintenance is.

But, really, of course we are going to bring up the fluff explanations for why it is used. This is a fluff board about the fluff of a game. Not sure how pointing that out is an argument.

Ronin-Sage wrote:The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

The problem is that adding a bunch of kick-ass things into a vehicle increases the production cost, makes it more likely to break down, and makes maintenance more expensive and difficult. The fact that the Leman Russ is how it is, and that it's been as successful as it has been for the Imperium, clearly indicates that there is SOMETHING which, in their eyes, compensates for the problems; and no, "they're religious nutjobs" is not (at least to me) a sufficient reason. The Imperium is hard-pressed on all fronts and constantly strapped for resources; if it were possible to make the Leman Russ more efficient even by a tiny, tiny amount, the benefits of doing so would be so massive as to make it practically treasonous NOT to do so. Furthermore, the Mechanicus fetishizes efficiency, and would leap at the chance to improve it.

The conclusion I draw is that the Imperium confronted the typical design triangle; you can make it good, fast, or cheap, pick two. And given their situation, they chose fast and cheap, accepting some compromises in quality in the interests of fielding masses of tanks which are 'good enough' rather than a few tanks that are super-awesome.

infinite_array wrote:
Thousands of fake worlds, and millions of made-up battles.

By that logic, here, look at this rock. It is become Death, destroyer of worlds. A mere squeeze of the rock can massacre armies. A light toss can destroy worlds. If I were to break it, all of creation would cease to be, or have been, or will be.

Because that's the way I fething wrote it.

Uh, yes. And if we were talking about your fluff, that rock would be pretty impressive. And if we cared we would be discussing how that could be, and the implications, and history, etc.

And someone would bring up, "but I don't think that makes sense". And if we cared we would discuss if it did or not. And if you hadn't justified it well enough people would largely agree, "no that doesn't make sense". And if it was poorly justified than you wouldn't have any fans and no one would be discussing it. That is how fiction works, so congradulation on recognizing that.

GW did the same thing, wrote about the LR tank, and the discussion is being had, is there justification for it, and is it good enough. For many the answer is yes, and they are discussing why. They have some good points, so it is a compelling discussion.

But recognizing how fiction and the discussion of fictional universes works and giving an example of how to do it badly does not constitute an argument against the Leman Russ tank and it's utility and practicality within 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The conclusion I draw is that the Imperium confronted the typical design triangle; you can make it good, fast, or cheap, pick two. And given their situation, they chose fast and cheap, accepting some compromises in quality in the interests of fielding masses of tanks which are 'good enough' rather than a few tanks that are super-awesome.

I have to chime in here, this isn't strictly true in this circumstance, and doesn't address the OP's argument. Certain design decisions really don't require any sacrifice (or at least any meaningful sacrifice). The Leman Russ IS a poorly designed tank (because it wasn't designed as a tank). It COULD have all the features it currently has AND good design. There isn't always a tradeoff. Some changes are just good changes.

The problem being, of course, that the Imperium DIDN'T design the LR, and is incapable of designing a new, better model. So the Leman Russ gets used, because of the choices they had, it best suited their needs, and continues to do so.

Again, improvements could be made on the design without negatively impacting it's ease of manufacture or durability. The Imperium is just incapable of doing so.

Ronin-Sage wrote:The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

Did you miss the part where people admitted it's not a great design but that it does what it is made for? And not to forget, if all the IoM's designs were perfect, all of 40k would unravel and the whole point of this universe would be gone.

This is the problem with wanting realistic designs from a sci-fi universe. Yeah, you could make it better, but it would completely break everything the universe is based on.

Blacksails wrote:Leman Russ Battle Tank is protected by grimdark. That is all.

Pretty much.

Thunderhawks wouldn't fly. Dreadnoughts wouldn't be able to negotiate difficult terrain or slopes. Nothing Ork would work period, especially given their apparent complete lack of infrastructure for producing fuel and the near ubiquitous use of internal combustion engines. Numerous laws of physics work against the concept of the Tyranids. Kinda have to just assume the universe isn't meant to be taken 100% seriously, and sorta suspend your disbelief in some sectors.

TedNugent wrote:I always thought the silliest thing about the Leman Russ design is that it uses riveted armor in the 41st millenium. For reference, most first-rate military powers started using welded steel in World War 2.

But, whatever, it's flavor, and like another poster mentioned, it's basically stylized after a World War I-era British tank. By contrast, the Baneblade looks much more modern, with its squatter frame and angled front glacis. It's just art. It doesn't have to make sense, I guess.

But then, we're not considering all the variables, and don't even know all of them.

For example, if the Leman Russ STC is designed to be constructed out of anything, on worlds that potentially have a lower grade of technology, then the riveted design would be more practical for a greater number of materials and a greater number of tech levels. Any planet with a blacksmith could build something that requires only sheet metals and bolts/nails/rivets, but not if the design only worked with weldable materials, or a population capable of welding.

Another example - in todays armies, protecting the crew is the most important factor. In the Imperium, it's largely irrelevant. All the crew could die to the first shot that penetrates the side, but if you can easily take that side off and 'bolt on' a new one and throw five more crew in, who cares? As long as it's possible to do it quickly in ANY situation, it's good....

Well, good luck making the engine if your civilization can't even weld.

Soladrin wrote:Well, good luck making the engine if your civilization can't even weld.

But you don't necessarily have to be able to make an engine. You can make "Armor Plate type XIIV" which is useful in any number of circumstances, and eventually when you CAN make engines you already have a bunch of "Armor Plate type XIIV" and the capacity to make more. That is how Dark Age tech worked. You could start at stone age tech and, using your handy STC, advance all the way to space age tech with no wasted effort along the way.

And if the IG is fighting on your feudal work they can use your "Armor Plate type XIIV" which your blacksmiths can currently produce to repair their vehicles. Or if a feudal world has to pay a tithe it can tithe "Armor Plate type XIIV" which can then be used on any number of other, higher tech worlds.

In 40k everything is lego tech.

Oh I agree there. I was just saying, they won't be making tanks.

If the lemun russ is a tractor with guns, then what is a malacador (or whatever its called...that tank that was in IA Badab War on the renagade's side)?

infinite_array wrote:

Ribon Fox wrote:

And so say all of us!
Those that are whinging about the LRBT just wish they had some thing as cool and as awesome that has proven itself on thousands of worlds and millions of battles.
By the way I think is the Rino that was a tractor refitted and the LRBT has alwas been a tank, it was used in the grate crusade remember and tech back then wasn't as lost as it is now.

Thousands of fake worlds, and millions of made-up battles.

By that logic, here, look at this rock. It is become Death, destroyer of worlds. A mere squeeze of the rock can massacre armies. A light toss can destroy worlds. If I were to break it, all of creation would cease to be, or have been, or will be.

Because that's the way I fething wrote it.

This.

We aren't told, but from the fluff it is an older, inferior design than the LR, heavier and with an unreliable engine.

So if i were to theorize...

My guess would be due to it's similarities to the LR and other STC tractor platforms it was pieced together from various existing STC tractor technologies and existing non-STC technologies by the Ad Mech. When the LR STC was discovered it was quickly phased out.

That's just guessing, obviously, since we are not told outright.

riplikash wrote:
GW did the same thing, wrote about the LR tank, and the discussion is being had, is there justification for it, and is it good enough. For many the answer is yes, and they are discussing why. They have some good points, so it is a compelling discussion.

The problem I have is that all of the 'justification' so far essentially boils down to 'because it was written that way'.

The LR is poorly designed.
'No, cause look at the fluff, it isn't'.

It wouldn't be feasible on the battlefield.
'It is, look at the the battles it's been in.'

Its engine makes no sense.
'Yes it does, they wrote that it does right here.'

As others have said, and I agree with them, the LR trundles forward by the twin powers of the rule of cool and grimdark.

The Russ is rather representative of the Imperium; it's backwards in it's design, as OP pointed out, as is most the Imperium, kept working no doubt by faith and faith alone. Besides, it looks cool.

Rule of cool is now in effect.

infinite_array wrote:

riplikash wrote:
GW did the same thing, wrote about the LR tank, and the discussion is being had, is there justification for it, and is it good enough. For many the answer is yes, and they are discussing why. They have some good points, so it is a compelling discussion.

The problem I have is that all of the 'justification' so far essentially boils down to 'because it was written that way'.

Firstly, you can say that about any discussion about why things are done the way they are in fiction, but then why bother getting involved in the discussion?

Secondly, no they don't, at least beyond the obvious "every discussion about 40k boils down to 'because it was written that way'". They boil down to, "due to the values of the faction, the established history of the faction, and their methods of warfare, the LR tank is has an internally consistent justification for it's design. While it is a sub-optimal design for a battle tank, it's success and continued use within the IG makes sense within the framework it is presented".

Let me put it another way. Let's pretend the real world is fictional. We could start discussing real world weapons with sub-optimal designs that see continued use, the AK-47 is a great example.

One might bring up it is so inaccurate you can't reliably hit a man sized target from 100 yards, has crappy iron sites, and any number of other complains, saying it isn't realistic.

When discussing their continued use I might defend the AK47 by saying ease of manufacture, reliability, maintainability, ease of use, and volume of fire are more important to it's user base than accuracy, peak performance, and other high end features. It would make an interesting debate, and justify the existence of the AK's use in "warhammer 2k".

And you would then argue "your just using fluff to justify its poor design.

And I would say, "why, yes, I am. I thought we were discussing fluff, and it's justification, and if it makes sense within the context".

And you would then reply "yeah, but my problem is all of your justifications just boil down to 'because they wrote it that way'".

And I would say you are being silly. We are discussing what they wrote and if it makes sense and why.

The end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are also misrepresenting your opponents:

The LR is poorly designed.
'No, cause look at the fluff, it isn't'.

No, we agreed it was a poorly designed MBT, and gave in universe justifications for why this was, and it's continued use.

It wouldn't be feasible on the battlefield.
'It is, look at the the battles it's been in.'

Again, no. It IS feasable within the IG's military paradigm. It shoots guns, and that is fine. It isn't survivable due to poor design, they just don't care. It's like an AK47: cheap, reliable, puts rounds down range.

How are they not feasible?

Its engine makes no sense.
'Yes it does, they wrote that it does right here.'

What? Who said any of this? How do their engines not make sense?

I mean, yeah, if your argument against sci-fi tech is "no it wouldn't work" then the appropriate response is "yes, but it does work". That's just sci-fi for you. When it comes to borderline magical tech...well you just kind of have to accept it. You can discuss the implications, but it's pretty silly to discuss it's existence. Sci-fi, beyond the very hardest, near future stories, is always based on what would currently be impossible tech.

Though I don't see how you would argue an engine that runs on most any sort of stored calorie makes no sense in a sci-fi setting.

It's not even that cool a design. I mean when John Blanche draws it sure...



But in the 'flesh'?



i kind of wish GW had redesigned it for the last codex, got totally over the top with gothic nonsense and stop pretending it's a credible tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riplikash wrote:As has been noted, the main thing to remember about the Leman Russ and its ilk are that they are NOT MBTs, they are tractors with guns on them.

Most IoM vehicles are based off a LEGO philosophy that was the core of the STC system. Everything runs everywhere, run on anything, and can be easily combined. That is also why they are still using riveted, or at least bolted armor. The armor panel itself wasn't designed as "Leman Russ" armor, anymore than a 2x4 lego piece is designed to be a house support.

It is the same with most weaponry, like las cannons. It isn't designed to go on any given tank, it can be placed on ANY STC mount of the proper type.

For the Imperium the Leman Russ is a great tank. No it isn't the most survivable, optimal design. That isn't its purpose. It doesn't operate alone, its not valuable, the lives of its crew are not valuable (this is a big point). It is simply a platform for guns used by a society scavenging for tech they don't understand.

It's cheap to produce.
But it runs anywhere and on anything.
It's cheap to produce.
It is much easier to maintain than actual, specialized battle tanks.
It's cheap to produce.

So the IG gets LOTS of easily maintainable, durable, throw-away vehicles. And that is usually what they want. It perfectly fits the IGs modus operandi, even though it wouldn't fit our own.

But there is another scenario to consider. Imagine you are in a mad-max/fallout style situation. You have little to no technical training, no supply line. Would you rather have a modern MBT or a Leman Russ? I'd choose the Leman Russ every time. Sure it might not perform as well as a specialized battle tank, but it will always perform, and I can fix it on my own. And often that is the exact situation the Imperium is in.

Now I'm not saying it is the most optimal design. I'm sure dark age humans could have devised a battle tank that had the durability, ease of manufacture, and ease of use of the Leman Russ but that was actually designed for war. But they didn't (or at least the IoM doesn't have the plans). That wasn't how they approached warfare.

So the IoM does the best with what they have. And what they have works pretty well for how they operate.

All good analysis but not really supported by the rules where the Russ is has the best front armor possible in the game.

If I was rewriting 40k from the ground up I would make Russes AV13 and cheaper, reserve 14 for high-tech composites like the Land Raider. Chimeras would go down to 11, Rhinos up to AV12.

As everyone knows, rules != fluff. In the fluff a LR is not the equivalent in armor to a monolith.

EmilCrane wrote: The sides are flat and huge

Cheaper to manufacturer models I guess.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:It's not even that cool a design. I mean when John Blanche draws it sure...

No. John Blanche's piss-poor quality drawings are not better tahn the model.

Frankly, I honestly believe that if I put my mind to it I could do a better job than he did on that particular piece of art. And I'm not even a dedicated artist.

It looks like something a high schooler lazily doodled during class while ignoring the teacher, not someething put out by a professional artist.

Not that I really expect anything more from Blanche, but still.

Funny enough the Leman Russ turret might actually have some good sloping from here - scroll down to posts #6, 10, 12, 14.. The front sloping doesn't look horrible either. Sides are a problem, as are the tracks (Although track guards might help a bit there) but you could probably slope the sides if you did away with sponsons (working in two dimensions helps there.) Besides, don't forget that sloping will do squat when it comes to energy weapons, and a great many enemies the Imperium faces will be having energy weapons. I'm not sure whether or not sloping will help against a hypervelocity weapon (where the impact will basically crater/explode your armor from sheer velocity) like the tau and some others have (or shuriken weapons for that matter) but it's a consideration.

The rivetting isn't really an issue either due to the whole 'molecular bonding studs' thing (Cf Deliverance Lost) - considering Starships and (I think) Titans can have a 'rivetted' appearance you can bet the studs probably are utilised in many ways.

What is a problem with the tank is that huge azz gun (if you actually went by the artwork or model the thing has to be what 200-300mm in diameter?) with a short barrel. Maybe if you have some sort of rocket-assited, shaped charge munition that might make sense, but loading the rounds is going to be a joke (unless you get Bragg as your loader) and your ammo carrying capacity is going to be 'nil'.

Also the height is a problem, since the thing is what 4+ m tall? Its got a high profile which makes it easy to target at range (of course if its got the right weapons the enemy might also be in range as far as line of sight goes - eg Lasers) - of course considering the prevalance of skimmers, gunships, fighters, and orbiting starships having a lower profile generally means your tank is going to have a flatter/wider profiel from above which is also a problem, so there's no real good way to balance those out I think.

The sheer size of the tracks is a huge flaw too (and nothing fixes that.)

It makes a difference when you consider that most incoming fire will be energy based weapons. Not much of a difference though.

well its not really an easy thing to predict. You might be fighting Orks, or eldar. Or you migth be fighting an enemy who uses a combination of both (like the Tau) or you migth be fighting some other kind of enemy. Thats part of the problem - the Imperium can't predict every single little possibility they might have to deal with. Humans in RL have it easier designing military tech because we can generally predict what the enemy will be like, how they might fight, etc.

Now that isn't to say you can't point out flaws in the military stuff in the Imperium (because they can be legion) it's just not a simple thing and one has to always bear in mind that there are always going to be tradeoffs of some kind or another. At least in terms of the Russ you can say its an adaptable design.

Randomonioum wrote:Sure, a single leman russ on its own would likely get flanked. But when you have 10 of them, hurtling down a hill, side by side to cover each others side armor, good luck getting a hit off on it! Leman russ tanks are designed to be used together, rather than alone.

You ever played 40k with LR before? they ROLL down the hill.....
they'll blow themselves up before getting hit by anything.

You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds. I would also wish that they would give a second thought of whether something is sensible or not. All the tactical flaws make the troops of the IoM weaker and their enemies even more pathetic.
So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

For the very least the fluff should have one small advanced human faction. But of course that can't be done.

Safor wrote:You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds. I would also wish that they would give a second thought of whether something is sensible or not. All the tactical flaws make the troops of the IoM weaker and their enemies even more pathetic.
So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

For the very least the fluff should have one small advanced human faction. But of course that can't be done.

What well thought out argument


You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds.
Oh, because that's a good reason!

So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

Lolwut? Do you even play the game? All of the IoMs melee specialists are all relatively fast. Assault Marines have jump packs, Terminators can deepstrike, etc.

The only reasons why the IoM bothers with melee is to either
a) Conserve ammo (because they are at war with everyone, who are generally more numerous or harder to kill)
b) To counter the enemy's fondness for melee (such as orks, who are the IoM MOST COMMON ENEMY)
c) to exploit their enemy's weakness in melee (see - Tau and Necrons)
d) All of the above.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Safor wrote:You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds. I would also wish that they would give a second thought of whether something is sensible or not. All the tactical flaws make the troops of the IoM weaker and their enemies even more pathetic.
So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

For the very least the fluff should have one small advanced human faction. But of course that can't be done.

What well thought out argument


You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds.
Oh, because that's a good reason!

So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

Lolwut? Do you even play the game? All of the IoMs melee specialists are all relatively fast. Assault Marines have jump packs, Terminators can deepstrike, etc.

The only reason why the IoM bothers with melee is to either
a) Conserve ammo (because they are at war with everyone, who are generally more numerous or harder to kill)
b) To counter the enemies fondness for melee (such as orks, who are the IoM MOST COMMON ENEMY)
c) to exploit their enemies weakness in melee (see - Tau and Necrons)
d) All of the above.

The people who make the fluff leave significant flaws in the units because:

a) They don't care whether the units are badass or not.
b) They simply don't know better.

Since all factions are made by the same people it balances itself out. Like assault terminators are an good example of an expensive unit that would usually get blown to pieces or gunned down before they can actually cause some damage. Expect that the enemy is too stupid to exploit their weakness.

If they had personal teleporters it would be another story but they don't.

a) Yeah its really intelligent to carry extra melee weapons instead of more ammo.
b) So whats more effective against dedicated melee units? Ranged or melee? Hmmm I wonder. Not to mention mines and other systems.
c) Only useful when you manage to surprise them.

I'd agree with a lot of what has been posted here but another pertinent PoV I feel, is who the Imperium is actually fighting.
The classic response is "well VS Tau tanks or Monoliths or Eldar Fire Prisms, the Leman Russ does suck" but remember, whils the imperium does fight these foes often, it also more often then not fights other humans, planetary rebellions, factions that wont join the Imperium, uprisings, inter system conflicts.
Vs these other humans who (probably) dont have tech anywhere near the main Imperiums level the LR is probably a serious beast, akin to the tanks of WW1 when they first showed up, sowing fear and terror amidst the enemy ranks whilst being all but impervious to their weaponry.

Its beautifull who cares of it works. In real life. Storm raven? Apart from they are fething ugly.

Actually, I'd say Orks vs IG is the most common fight in the galaxy involving humans alongside IG vs human heretics, probably more common than humans vs humans.

A valid point but not in dispute.
I just think we need to take a step back in terms of where the LR is most often deployed and the role in which it can excel.

Safor wrote:
The people who make the fluff leave significant flaws in the units because:

a) They don't care whether the units are badass or not.
b) They simply don't know better.

See, now you are creating a decent argument. "Because they are nerds" doesn't cut it. And I would dare say GW does care if a unit is badass or not. Otherwise we wouldn't have such OTT goodness such as Wazdakka crashing into a titan's cockpit on a motorbike (see: Ork Codex 5th ed (or is it 4th ed? The most recent one)

It is true they wouldn't know better...but then again, that is generally the case behind fantasy or sci-fi./

Safor wrote:
Like assault terminators are an good example of an expensive unit that would usually get blown to pieces or gunned down before they can actually cause some damage. Expect that the enemy is too stupid to exploit their weakness.

And that is why assault terminators wear the best armor the imperium can make. Have you played the game? If you had, you would then know that TH/SS termies are usually quite high on the target priority list. And that they are a real pain in the ass to kill. If you do manage to kill them, then you just wasted all your firepower on 1 squad, giving the rest of the army time to get into position.

Safor wrote:

If they had personal teleporters it would be another story but they don't.

a) Yeah its really intelligent to carry extra melee weapons instead of more ammo.
b) So whats more effective against dedicated melee units? Ranged or melee? Hmmm I wonder. Not to mention mines and other systems.
c) Only useful when you manage to surprise them.

Do you have any idea how rare personal teleportation tech is? Or how difficult it is to make? Hell, the teleporters on space ships barely work!

a) I fail to see your point. Assault troops are geared for assault. Why would they carry more ammo?
b) Good point, and that is why dedicated assault units are fast. And there are mines and gun turrets. Again, I have to ask, do you even play this game?
c) Yes, which is the point of THE BLOODY JUMP PACKS AND DEEPSTRIKE AND INFILTRATORS

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Do you have any idea how rare personal teleportation tech is? Or how difficult it is to make? Hell, the teleporters on space ships barely work!

a) I fail to see your point. Assault troops are geared for assault. Why would they carry more ammo?
b) Good point, and that is why dedicated assault units are fast. And there are mines and gun turrets. Again, I have to ask, do you even play this game?
c) Yes, which is the point of THE BLOODY JUMP PACKS AND DEEPSTRIKE AND INFILTRATORS

The terminator armour is vulnerable to AT-weapons and in urban terrain also to explosives.

a) The solution for too few ammo is not taking melee weapons and even less ammo.
b) So whats the point of making slow not agile units so melee orientated? Especially when they could have ranged weapons without compromising their melee abilities.
c) Deepstrike is an one shot manouver. After that an melee unit that can't seek safety from speed is vulnerable.

Safor wrote:

a) The solution for too few ammo is not taking melee weapons and even less ammo.
b) So whats the point of making slow not agile units so melee orientated? Especially when they could have ranged weapons without compromising their melee abilities.
c) Deepstrike is an one shot manouver. After that an melee unit that can't seek safety from speed is vulnerable.

a) Still doesn't fix the logistical problem of giving everyone enough ammo to fight every enemy on multiple fronts. And besides, its generally only the assault specialists that have little ammo and melee weapons. Your basic trooper has his rifle, maybe a knife (like today's soldiers), and a clip or 2.

b) Because the slow units are generally very hard to kill, making them great for standing up to demons, walkers and so on. And the slow mobility is often negated by heavy transports and deepstriking.

c) It may be a one shot maneuver, but it pays off. And there can't be retaliation if there is no one left to shoot back.

Safor wrote:Like assault terminators are an good example of an expensive unit that would usually get blown to pieces or gunned down before they can actually cause some damage. Expect that the enemy is too stupid to exploit their weakness.

If they had personal teleporters it would be another story but they don't.

a) Yeah its really intelligent to carry extra melee weapons instead of more ammo.
b) So whats more effective against dedicated melee units? Ranged or melee? Hmmm I wonder. Not to mention mines and other systems.
c) Only useful when you manage to surprise them.

Assault Terminators are a good example of a SPECIALIZED unit, not a stupid one. If you're under the impression that every military unit ought to be able to do everything, then I'm afraid you've got a very odd conception of combat. Terminators, and especially Assault Terminators, have a limited role which they are VERY good at; namely, shock assault and close-combat.

Point one; personal teleporters would be irrelevant. If there is a ship in orbit, the Terminators can pop into existence nose-to-nose with their enemies and crush them before anyone realizes what is happening; if there isn't one, then Terminators are not fighting.

Point two; Please remember that gameplay != fluff. Terminators are very rarely deployed in open-field combat of the kind you see in a typical 40k game; they are specialized heavy assault troops, who carry the fighting in Space Hulks, hive cities, and dense urban combat. In short, places where few enemies can fire on them at once and where their powerful weaponry can easily be brought to bear. In that context, they are death incarnate. You turn the corner, suddenly power fist. Wham. One less enemy of the Imperium.

Point three; Even in those rare occasions when Terminators ARE used in set-piece or meeting engagements, the Space Marines have plenty of ways to get them right into the enemy's face, and then use them to crush said face into goo. Sometimes they serve as mechanized spearhead troops; the Land Raiders (the most heavily armored IFV in the Imperium) barrel forward, disgorge Terminators within ten feet or so of the enemy, the enemy gets maybe a second or two of fire off before suffering a serious case of hammer-induced cranial trauma. Or perhaps they're deployed via drop-pod; exactly the same thing happens. Pod lands, doors blow, Deathwind launchers suppress the enemy nearby, Terminators hit like a ton of bricks. An actual engagement would not be like the tabletop game; the Terminators do not have to politely wait after they land for the enemy to realize what's happening, shift their aim, and unload a full volley into them. They hit the deck, they charge and never, ever stop moving. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

Point four; Ok, let's ignore all that. There isn't any battle-barge in orbit (how'd they get there?), so they can't teleport or use any Drop Pods. All the Land Raiders are in the shop, so they can't be driven into battle. The only thing they've got is themselves, and weapons.

So they haul out the storm bolters and CMLS. It isn't like those hammers and claws are surgically grafted to their fists. Now, all of the sudden, they are a viciously deadly long-range unit, perfectly capable of tearing up armored units and infantry alike. . . as well as being armored like a tank, but still having the mobility and flexibility of an infantryman. And, of course, they still have their Power Fists, so they can perform their shock-assault and close-combat functions perfectly well.

Point five; To speak specifically about Assault Terminators, this is an even MORE specialized loadout than regular Terminators, and deployed in even fewer situations; namely, if you have a rock-hard target that absolutely, positively must be taken by storm, or if you have to fight in EXTREMELY close quarters, like a naval boarding action. In literally any other circumstance, regular storm bolter and power fist Terminators, with a couple of support weapons, will do the job excellently.But when you need to smash into that fortress, oh look, suddenly Assault Terminators in the command bunker. Whack, crunch, bam. When you need to cripple that Chaos cruiser now, suddenly Terminators breaking open the hatch to the command bridge. Or Terminators in the engineering section, smashing the controls for the reactor and killing the tech-magi. Or Terminators in the life support section, venting all the stored oxygen into space and wrecking the recycling systems. Good luck shooting them down, with all those powerful long-range weapons you don't have and couldn't use anyway in such cramped conditions.

Terminators are only ineffective if you assume that the Space Marine commander turns off his brain before committing them to battle. If the commander turns off his brain, EVERYTHING is ineffective.


But we're not discussing Terminators in this thread, we're discussing Leman Russes. There are basically two possibilities; either the Leman Russ is a seriously flawed design, and it isn't made more efficient because the entire Adeptus Mechanicus is comprised of nothing but drooling morons (which I find unlikely, frankly); or it is simply designed to do a different job than modern MBTs are. Myself, I favor the second interpretation, for two reasons.

First off, from the front the design actually functions reasonably well. The turret is relatively short and wide; the frontal armor is quite angled, as is the rear. The sides are the problem, being both tall and perfectly flat; but for a tank designed to be used en masse to a degree that modern armored units simply are not, that's not so much of a problem as it might be. If you have fifty Leman Russes across a kilometer of frontage, anyone maneuvering to get side shots is likely to be exposing themselves to fire from nearly every direction.

Secondly, the Leman Russ is a universal vehicle, not a specialized one. Those massive treads? They may actually have an important function, increasing maneuverability (though at the cost of speed). A Leman Russ is fully amphibious as well; for comparison, here's a picture of a Marine Corps Amphibious Assault Vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AAV-australia.jpg. Notice those same great big flat sides? And here's a picture of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that was supposed to replace it, before the project was canceled for being too expensive; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle.jpg. Exactly the same; highly sloped front armor, big flat sides. In order to have a fully amphibious vehicle, that design is important; the tank has to be 'boat-like', essentially.

The Leman Russ cannot be a specialized vehicle, because the Imperial Guard, unlike the Space Marines, are by and large not a specialized force. They need to be able to go anywhere and do anything, which means they need a main battle tank that can go anywhere and do anything. Which is what the Leman Russ is.

And once again, BeRzErKeR wins the thread.

I agree with the above - BeRzErKeR wins this thread....

Only thing I noticed - I don't think the Leman Russ is an amphibious vehicle - I know the Chimera is but the Russ IIRC isn't... I could be wrong though....

TO LEXICANUM!

EDIT: Nothing on Lexicanum about the Russ being amphibious - do you have a source at all?

I tip my hat to you BeRzErKeR. Well said.

Melissia wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:It's not even that cool a design. I mean when John Blanche draws it sure...

No. John Blanche's piss-poor quality drawings are not better tahn the model.

Frankly, I honestly believe that if I put my mind to it I could do a better job than he did on that particular piece of art. And I'm not even a dedicated artist.

It looks like something a high schooler lazily doodled during class while ignoring the teacher, not someething put out by a professional artist.

Not that I really expect anything more from Blanche, but still.

Oh jeez, I'm agreeing with Melissia, on evry point. I need to sit down.

Tibbsy wrote:

EDIT: Nothing on Lexicanum about the Russ being amphibious - do you have a source at all?

Apologies, I don't have my books with at the moment so I can't provide a quote; but in one of the first Gaunt's Ghosts novels (part of the first omnibus), the Ghosts are part of an amphibious assault on an island. They come under fire and the transports drop them (and their armored support) off too early. While many of the infantry drown and some tanks are lost, most of the armor swims to shore and supports the attack.

That was Ghostmaker. Although if its the bit you're talking about (Caffran's story where the gets inside the walls and defeats the enemy) I think they were Basilisks meant to blast down the wall - and they didnt do well in the water. Of course they're artillery.

Chimeras are amphibious (Cf 5th Edition IG codex) so its possible and even probable that Russes can be modified to be so.

Berzerker: I was curious if you would elaborate on this point:

Secondly, the Leman Russ is a universal vehicle, not a specialized one. Those massive treads? They may actually have an important function, increasing maneuverability (though at the cost of speed).

I'm a bit curious to see an explanation as to how the treads could be an advantage - I admit I couldn't think of one (they interefere with the the sloping of the armor, at least, so there is going to be at least a tradeoff in any event.)

I also recall mention of reactive armor and ablative armor being used for tanks. They may be an alternative (or supplement) to sloped (although reactive is only good against shpaed charges and other CE rounds, not KE ones)

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Assault Terminators are a good example of a SPECIALIZED unit, not a stupid one. If you're under the impression that every military unit ought to be able to do everything, then I'm afraid you've got a very odd conception of combat. Terminators, and especially Assault Terminators, have a limited role which they are VERY good at; namely, shock assault and close-combat.

Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

As for the LR it sort of makes sense as an cheap makeshift tank. But using makeshift tanks as MBT:s because their engineers were unable to build anything better pretty muchly tells the current state of the IoM.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:

EDIT: Nothing on Lexicanum about the Russ being amphibious - do you have a source at all?

Apologies, I don't have my books with at the moment so I can't provide a quote; but in one of the first Gaunt's Ghosts novels (part of the first omnibus), the Ghosts are part of an amphibious assault on an island. They come under fire and the transports drop them (and their armored support) off too early. While many of the infantry drown and some tanks are lost, most of the armor swims to shore and supports the attack.

I was going to say what Connor said above - I remember that story and it was indeed in Ghostmaker. (Possibly my favourite story in the book ) And he is correct - The armour that got dropped in consisted of Basilisks; which aren't amphibious - being open-topped and all

They were meant to beach first and blast the wall down, to allow the infantry in; instead they got stuck, and a passing dropship did it for them...

EDIT: Typo

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

I believe Berzerker's entire point is that you build to the requirements you desire or need. That won't include overspecialization.

For example if you need a rifle that can kill regular humans then you build a rifle that gives you the ability to do tat. You don't build in the ability to demolish mutant flamethrower wielding killer apes into it just because you MIGHT face such a thing.

It's all about tradeoffs. The ability to do one thing means that you sacrifice in some other area that may or may not be important. hell even technology is not neccesarily immune to this. You can build a high tech rifle, but that can carry a tradeoff in cost/time to build/materials usage. There's alot of variables to consider.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Leman Russ Battle Tank is protected by grimdark. That is all.

Pretty much.

Thunderhawks wouldn't fly.

Silly question but why do you think this. You realise that most modern jets have the aerodynamics of a brick without the use of computers.

And the done have a ton of vector engines.

Any way back on topic the leman Russ looks cool and that's good enough for me.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

I believe Berzerker's entire point is that you build to the requirements you desire or need. That won't include overspecialization.

For example if you need a rifle that can kill regular humans then you build a rifle that gives you the ability to do tat. You don't build in the ability to demolish mutant flamethrower wielding killer apes into it just because you MIGHT face such a thing.

It's all about tradeoffs. The ability to do one thing means that you sacrifice in some other area that may or may not be important. hell even technology is not neccesarily immune to this. You can build a high tech rifle, but that can carry a tradeoff in cost/time to build/materials usage. There's alot of variables to consider.

You know what all military units and personell of any proper army have in common? They are supposed to survive. Like all support units have anti tank abilities, anti aircraft abilities are trained to dig in, know how to deal with CBRN-weapons ect ect so that are less likely to die and can actually perform their mission.

Assault terminators have no ranged ability for no sensible reason.

Safor wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

I believe Berzerker's entire point is that you build to the requirements you desire or need. That won't include overspecialization.

For example if you need a rifle that can kill regular humans then you build a rifle that gives you the ability to do tat. You don't build in the ability to demolish mutant flamethrower wielding killer apes into it just because you MIGHT face such a thing.

It's all about tradeoffs. The ability to do one thing means that you sacrifice in some other area that may or may not be important. hell even technology is not neccesarily immune to this. You can build a high tech rifle, but that can carry a tradeoff in cost/time to build/materials usage. There's alot of variables to consider.

You know what all military units and personell of any proper army have in common? They are supposed to survive. Like all support units have anti tank abilities, anti aircraft abilities are trained to dig in, know how to deal with CBRN-weapons ect ect so that are less likely to die and can actually perform their mission.

Assault terminators have no ranged ability for no sensible reason.

Aaannd your point is? You bring up an argument about survival, and you somehow connect that to range weaponry. That doesn't make much sense.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aaannd your point is? You bring up an argument about survival, and you somehow connect that to range weaponry. That doesn't make much sense.

An significant unnecessary weakness that can be exploitet by the enemy.

Safor wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aaannd your point is? You bring up an argument about survival, and you somehow connect that to range weaponry. That doesn't make much sense.

An significant unnecessary weakness that can be exploitet by the enemy.

But not having any ranged capability is not a weakness for the assault termies. As Berzerker said, they are used in areas which will place them in close quarters, making ranged combat pointless, and even then they could shrug off most gunfire.

In what context are assault marines being used? against what sort of enemy and in what sort of enviroment? I have this mental image that troops that are equpped and dedicated for counterinsurgency or building to building clearing would need to haul around pocket nukes just in case the terrorists happen to have a doomsday mechabot in their inventory, so it would be nice to clarify here.

Connor MacLeod wrote:In what context are assault marines being used? against what sort of enemy and in what sort of enviroment? I have this mental image that troops that are equpped and dedicated for counterinsurgency or building to building clearing would need to haul around pocket nukes just in case the terrorists happen to have a doomsday mechabot in their inventory, so it would be nice to clarify here.

Well, he's not arguing against assault marines, for one thing. He's talking about assault terminators. You know, the big guys with the hammers?
And I think he's just hosing them in general. No scenario.

Connor MacLeod wrote:That was Ghostmaker. Although if its the bit you're talking about (Caffran's story where the gets inside the walls and defeats the enemy) I think they were Basilisks meant to blast down the wall - and they didnt do well in the water. Of course they're artillery.

Chimeras are amphibious (Cf 5th Edition IG codex) so its possible and even probable that Russes can be modified to be so.

Berzerker: I was curious if you would elaborate on this point:

Secondly, the Leman Russ is a universal vehicle, not a specialized one. Those massive treads? They may actually have an important function, increasing maneuverability (though at the cost of speed).

I'm a bit curious to see an explanation as to how the treads could be an advantage - I admit I couldn't think of one (they interefere with the the sloping of the armor, at least, so there is going to be at least a tradeoff in any event.)

I also recall mention of reactive armor and ablative armor being used for tanks. They may be an alternative (or supplement) to sloped (although reactive is only good against shpaed charges and other CE rounds, not KE ones)

The treads, being taller and having a longer underside slope than modern tanks, would allow them to crawl up steeper inclines; in addition, the belt of the tread isn't covered by a projecting lip like it is in, for instance, the M1 Abrams, so the tank won't get its 'nose' jammed in the slope. A lower proportion of tread in contact with the ground, however, would mean less acceleration than a lower-slung tank with the same engine power. Essentially, there is a trade of speed for the capability to deal with more extreme terrain.

If I've misremembered the story, I apologize. I swear there were amphibious Leman Russes, though. . . if not there, then where did I read that? Hmm.

Safor wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Assault Terminators are a good example of a SPECIALIZED unit, not a stupid one. If you're under the impression that every military unit ought to be able to do everything, then I'm afraid you've got a very odd conception of combat. Terminators, and especially Assault Terminators, have a limited role which they are VERY good at; namely, shock assault and close-combat.

Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility

Look, you've got to remember that in the background, there is no 2+ armour save. Terminators would be almost completely impervious to small-arms fire, bazookas, grenades, mines, high calibre rifles, SAWs, whatever you've got to throw at them. They could cross 50 Metres in less time than you or I could, and wreck face when they got there with ridiculous ease.

It's a case of using the right tool for the job. Think about situations where you could deploy assault terminators.

Yeah I should have said assault terminators. Brain fart on my part sorry.

But its kinda relevant because Thunder Hammers are not exactly weak weapons, since they're giant hammers swung by terminator-assisted armor muscles by a superhuman warrior with a special and extremely powerful powergenerator added in. If they get close in it's quite possible for the Termiantor to literally beat the tank to death.

I'm also far from clear why the 'ranged' issue is so important because you don't employ your terminators (or space marines) out in an open field, unassisted, against enemy armour. IT lacks the speed and mobility even if you DID have ranged capability. They're not SUPPOSED to be fast (unless its a CS Goto novel in which case they can do backflips)

That's why Termiantors are designed to be deployed from Land Raiders or via teleport, after all.

Safor wrote: An significant unnecessary weakness that can be exploitet by the enemy.

Who's going to be shooting at them? And with what? You don't leave a unit like that sitting around in the open, and you don't even deploy it in theres a chance it will be met with dedicated AT weaponry. You save it for the opportune moment.

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

"Having storm bolters in addition to their melee weapons" is exactly what Tactical Terminators do. And, as I said;

BeRzErKeR wrote:Point five; To speak specifically about Assault Terminators, this is an even MORE specialized loadout than regular Terminators, and deployed in even fewer situations; namely, if you have a rock-hard target that absolutely, positively must be taken by storm, or if you have to fight in EXTREMELY close quarters, like a naval boarding action. In literally any other circumstance, regular storm bolter and power fist Terminators, with a couple of support weapons, will do the job excellently. But when you need to smash into that fortress, oh look, suddenly Assault Terminators in the command bunker. Whack, crunch, bam. When you need to cripple that Chaos cruiser now, suddenly Terminators breaking open the hatch to the command bridge. Or Terminators in the engineering section, smashing the controls for the reactor and killing the tech-magi. Or Terminators in the life support section, venting all the stored oxygen into space and wrecking the recycling systems. Good luck shooting them down, with all those powerful long-range weapons you don't have and couldn't use anyway in such cramped conditions.

Precise specialization is dangerous when you cannot use your specialists in the role they are designed for. But when you CAN, you end up with a HUGE advantage. All Terminators are Tactical Terminators; some are armed as Assault Terminators when the situation calls for that particular use. Please remember, Space Marines simply do not fight in battles where they don't have tactical control. When a Space Marine force deploys, 99% of the time they have orbital superiority, near-perfect information about their target, a specific objective to accomplish, and the massive advantage of overwhelming speed and surprise. For their style of warfare, a high degree of specialization is EXACTLY what is called for.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The treads, being taller and having a longer underside slope than modern tanks, would allow them to crawl up steeper inclines; in addition, the belt of the tread isn't covered by a projecting lip like it is in, for instance, the M1 Abrams, so the tank won't get its 'nose' jammed in the slope.

Makes sense.

A lower proportion of tread in contact with the ground, however, would mean less acceleration than a lower-slung tank with the same engine power. Essentially, there is a trade of speed for the capability to deal with more extreme terrain.

Again, makes sense. They tend to optimize the engine for versatility and durability (fuel source, etc.) so top acceleration probably isn't important for most russes (if you use them as the Krieg do, or as a defensive emplacement speed won't matter I imagine.) On the other hand those same engines get some ludicrously good fuel efficiency and range. The short story 'Defixio' had a Russ going 1500 km in 3 days without refuelling or attachment to a supply line, for example.

It's also not fixed as far as the engine go. then 2nd edition chaos Codex had Russes pulling upwards of 70 kph offroad (although they were much more upteched back then) and various novels (honour Guard and Gunheads) have them routinely pulling 30+ kph offroad. Heck, we know from a gAv thorpe short story in one of the old Imperial armour books (predating the 'current' IA books) that noted that Leman Russ engines can be modified for greater speed (and its not difficult to do, it just ticks off the AdMech.)

so clearly there's alot of room for variation there. I wonder if the Russ designs can fiddle with the track configuration or shape to improve performance too? Something more along the lines of a Chimera or Macharius, or the Malcadors.

Also now that I think about it I reclal some mention of sloped armor in one of the Leman Russ based novels, I forget which (or both!) - tech level is something you really have to remember here. What a high end tank regiment like the Narmenians or Pardus have for Russes isnt the same thing as a lower tier regiment (or a siege regiment like the Krieg) would have.

If I've misremembered the story, I apologize. I swear there were amphibious Leman Russes, though. . . if not there, then where did I read that. Hmm.

Maybe you were thinking Honour Guard? That was the big Guard Tank novel. Or maybe it was Gunheads *shrugs* Those are the only big tank novels I can think of and my memory isn't obscure about details. I'll try hunting around though

Defending the LR's design and the prominent role of melee combat in 40k in a single thread?

*head explodes*

going off topic again people o.o this is about the feasability of the LR's functional design in a warzone not about terminators and there fighting abilities, but it as far as ive seen the OP has been answered o.o with some debate and overall (reasonable for the most part) discussion, cheep tractor unit turned tank using future materials with cheep and expenable troops to shove inside, as well as being simple to fix and patch up when damaged o.o now where do terminators come into this?

Ronin-Sage wrote:Defending the LR's design and the prominent role of melee combat in 40k in a single thread?

*head explodes*

I am a master of the impossible.

Also, is this 'LR is actually a tractor-turned-battle-tank' fluff even valid?

Ronin-Sage wrote:Also, is this 'LR is actually a tractor-turned-battle-tank' fluff even valid?

I'd also like an answer to that, honestly; I vaguely remember seeing something about Rhinos being repurposed utility vehicle STC constructs, but I'd never heard that about Leman Russes. Can we get a source?

iirc it was 3rd ed rule book, not sure ill check later once i have the time to dig it out in the morning

Ronin-Sage wrote:Also, is this 'LR is actually a tractor-turned-battle-tank' fluff even valid?

Closest I ever got was the 'Land Crawler' from Epic 40K Swordwind, which was a tank adapted from agricultural vehicles for use in siege regiments more as a cheap effective stopgap. I've never seen any fluff about the Leman Russ actually being a tractor. It's not *impossible* mind - or it may have originally served as a nonmilitary vehicle of some kind (There are the Atlas) but that just underscores the intention to have the Russ hull (like the Chimera hull) be highly adaptable - you can make it into almost anything if you need to, which is a big asset for the Guard to have.

Bear in mind that saying that there might be reasons behind why the LR is how it is is not saying that its the greatest tank ever or even a well designed one. Given equal technology for both sides a LR tank will lose to an M1 Abrams (hell even given slightly better tech it still probably would lose.) but the point is there is a wide range of capabilities that one can build into the Russ, and that leads to differeitng levels of performance. But its far different than just 'good/bad'. I've seen 'whose tank is the best' threads on the Net which go along similar lines here and suffer similar problems, because not everyone builds the same way or to the same priorities or capabilities or accepts the same tradeoffs. Even the almighty M1 Abrams has some pretty hefty flaws in its design that can be a problme other tanks wouldnt neccesarily suffer from)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ronin-Sage wrote:Defending the LR's design and the prominent role of melee combat in 40k in a single thread?

*head explodes*

More like clarifying a poorly defined reference to a particular example/case of close in combat. Again its not saying that Melee combat is approved IRL - but at the same time (and I'm sure people have brought up examples) stuff we do see in 40K sometimes still happens IRL. Alot of it stems from circumstance.

Didn't a UN building get stormed the other year by a load of guys with no fire arms? From what I remember they pretty much killed everyone sadly. I guess theres a big psycalogical effect of a dude running at you from the other side of the room with a sword

Leman Russ - A good design.

I want to put forward a different opinion. With exception of one feature the Leman Russ is a good design. Sure there are problems with hull down etc because of ites height but I do not count this amongst the downsides as there are corresponding benefits but I will start with the negative feature:

There is nowhere for the breech block. The Commanders hatch is right behind the barrel leaving no recoil length and frankly no breech. GW might have noticed if their tank commander figures actually had lower boedies and legs, but as they dont they can slump like an ornament right above the main gun.
As a note there is no room for a loader either so the battlecannon must be a semi automatic weapon fed from a hopper below the gun breech. I suppose this is possible.

My take is that the commanders hatch is actually an escape hatch, and the heavy stubber and searchlight are wire controlled from inside the tank. I moved mine from the hatch ring to avoid confusion. I could see the commander also being main gunner.



Ok this aside why is the Leman Russ a good design.

1. High block profile. Yes this means no hull down, but it also means that the box like tank is easy to store in laagers or on ships and the large slab sides allow for sponsons. The additional height means its harder to go hull down, but also means far superior gun depression. If crersted on a hilltop a Leman Russ can look straight down the slope, especially with the front lascannon. A modern tank will have difficulties with that.

2. External track assembly. Second major benefit, so long as track guards are in place. The Leman Russ does not expose its road wheels the hull extends right to the ground. With regards to mechanical efficiency its not, which is why we don't build tanks like this anymore, not since the 20's. However the Imperium doesn't suffer energy shortages due to the level of tech they have, high powered batteries for laser weaponry is commonplace so the extra energy needed for this type of transmission is chump change. For this reason the Leman Russ doesnt need conventional transmission either it can work with fully electric transmission. a belching engine is needed to generate electricity for the lascannon and transmission not for driving a camshaft.

3. More Dakka. You get four major gun systems on a Russ turret and three restricted arc hardpoints, with room for three gunners behind them. The weapons systems are quite disparate, at a default an anti-tank laser and two heavy machine guns. Not bad really. The only thing missing is AAA and you get the Hydra for that. Between the Russ Hydra and Basilisk and a handful of specialist siege vehicles the Imperium does a solid job of providing a credible armoured threat.

4. Keep it simple. Laser weaponry is complex but thats all standard subcomponentry. The tank itself is made of slabs of metal put together with nuts and bolts. Easy to assemble, easy to salvage bits for another tank.

5. Superior movement profile. Here is where you get the main payoff for the Russ shape. The Russ is an all terrain engine. Let us compare with obsolete designed like the Abrams and Challenger 2. A good modern battle tank will be able to cross a two and a half metre trench or scale a metre high verticle obstacle. Pretty good yes, thats the advantage of tracks.. Actually figures for an Abrams are 274cm unsupported horizontal traverse and 120cm verticle traverse, the Challenger is similar.
But when ity comes to traversing trenches and verticle obstacles do you know which is the best tank in the world. Its been on this thread already.
Its this one:



The mk1 from the first world war can cross verticle obstacles better than any subsequent design, because of its track arrangement. IIRC the Mk1 had a verticle traverse of 9ft a modern tank will be lucky to traverse 4ft! Now the Mk1 is longer than a Russ but even so part of the benefits will be there, verticle traverse will be superior and probably by a considerable margin compared to a conventional track design.

The Leman Russ copies this success, and laughs off the mechanical efficiency problems of the design with electric transmission and energy technologies greatly in advance of our own. The mechanical efficiency of the design is ignored, the physical capability is wanted, so the Imperium uses it.

It may have been an accident, but I think GW got it right with the Russ. All it needs is a turret redesign with offset command cupola.

Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

I chose assault terminators as an example because the troop has an obivious flaw that could be easily corrected.
If everything goes according to the plan assault terminators don't need any long range weapons. However theres the fog of war. Sure against an poorly equipped enemy something going wrong is not much of an problem. But when planning your troop organization and tactics in general. You shouldn't count on enemy weakness.

What if the land raider gets shot before the dismount point or the drop pod gets shot and lands at an unfavorable position or the target has an jamming beacon messing with the teleport? They don't have the option of using fire and movement or engaging in an fire fight.
What if the corridor they have to pass through has melta mines with an directed effect and two lascannons on the other side?
What if they are fighting in an large engine room when suddenly two terminators fall dead on the floor and the rest of the squad realises that there are snipers on the upper levels armed with weapons that penetrate their armor?

Not to mention that installing the ranged weapons properly would make them function as CC weapons as well. Like think about two laspistols they can fire without using their hands installed on their helmets.

Safor wrote:Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

I chose assault terminators as an example because the troop has an obivious flaw that could be easily corrected.
If everything goes according to the plan assault terminators don't need any long range weapons. However theres the fog of war. Sure against an poorly equipped enemy something going wrong is not much of an problem. But when planning your troop organization and tactics in general. You shouldn't count on enemy weakness.

What if the land raider gets shot before the dismount point or the drop pod gets shot and lands at an unfavorable position or the target has an jamming beacon messing with the teleport? They don't have the option of using fire and movement or engaging in an fire fight.
What if the corridor they have to pass through has melta mines with an directed effect and two lascannons on the other side?
What if they are fighting in an large engine room when suddenly two terminators fall dead on the floor and the rest of the squad realises that there are snipers on the upper levels armed with weapons that penetrate their armor?

Not to mention that installing the ranged weapons properly would make them function as CC weapons as well. Like think about two laspistols they can fire without using their hands installed on their helmets.

Well it's possible to think of "what ifs" and potential scenarios until the cows come home. But any marine commander worth his salt knows that using such a highly specialised unit is a calculated risk. Basically, there could be any number of anti-terminator mines in a corridor, with remote lascannon turrets and a tripwire that pulls the pin off a vortex grenade. Any of those would be lethal to a terminator of any description, but nor would giving them stormbolters make any difference. Assault terminators have a set role, which they perform very well when deployed with care.

As to vehicles being destroyed or similar, well, that's just a fact of warfare really, there is no way even a tactical genius (CREEEEED!) can plan for every possible eventuality. Sure, the assault terminators could be given a ranged weapon without much compromise on their effectiveness, but on the other hand, if the tactical situation calls for it, why not go all out?

Safor wrote:Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

I chose assault terminators as an example because the troop has an obivious flaw that could be easily corrected.
If everything goes according to the plan assault terminators don't need any long range weapons. However theres the fog of war. Sure against an poorly equipped enemy something going wrong is not much of an problem. But when planning your troop organization and tactics in general. You shouldn't count on enemy weakness.

What if the land raider gets shot before the dismount point or the drop pod gets shot and lands at an unfavorable position or the target has an jamming beacon messing with the teleport? They don't have the option of using fire and movement or engaging in an fire fight.
What if the corridor they have to pass through has melta mines with an directed effect and two lascannons on the other side?
What if they are fighting in an large engine room when suddenly two terminators fall dead on the floor and the rest of the squad realises that there are snipers on the upper levels armed with weapons that penetrate their armor?

Not to mention that installing the ranged weapons properly would make them function as CC weapons as well. Like think about two laspistols they can fire without using their hands installed on their helmets.

See, this is what's wrong. Assault Terminators DO NOT have an obvious flaw that could be easily corrected. They simply have a highly specific, specialized use.

Have you noticed that there is in fact a unit that does exactly what you're talking about? Tactical Terminators. Powerful close-combat weapon, powerful ranged weapon, heavy support weapons in the squad. They are the generalist. If you need to clear a hive, you mostly use them. In most ASSAULTS, you use them. And please remember, these are the EXACT SAME GUYS as your Assault Terminators, they just left their hammers in the armory that day because their particular mission didn't call for them.

You deploy a Terminator Assault squad when you need THOSE PARTICULAR SKILLS, and you use them for THOSE PARTICULAR MISSIONS which require, or will benefit from, the application of overwhelming destructive power at close-combat range. If the mission doesn't call for that, then what you do is, you leave the thunder hammers and storm shields hanging on the wall, and go in with storm bolters instead.

Are there plenty of situations in which they won't work well? Oh, absolutely. Of course, exactly the same is true of, for instance, helicopters. Or tanks. Oh, no, of course you shouldn't bring TANKS to a war; what if your enemy is in a built-up urban environment, where the tanks can easily be ambushed and can't use their long-range weapons to good advantage? Well. . . then you use something ELSE, and use the tanks to do what they're good at.

You appear to be under the impression that specialization is a weakness. That simply is not true, particularly when you're talking about an elite, self-sufficient strike force like Space Marines.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Please remember, Space Marines simply do not fight in battles where they don't have tactical control. When a Space Marine force deploys, 99% of the time they have orbital superiority, near-perfect information about their target, a specific objective to accomplish, and the massive advantage of overwhelming speed and surprise. For their style of warfare, a high degree of specialization is EXACTLY what is called for.

Personally I wouldn't disagree that there are improvements to be made. And interestingly, in the fluff and other 40k based games you often don't see them deployed in assault squads as they are in the tabletop. Look at the various iterations of space hulk. You have a few CC experts thrown in with a more generalist squad. You shouldn't take the tabletop rules as the definitive guide on how 40k warfare is waged. For many factions (SM, Eldar, IG) they actually function very differently from their tabletop incarnations. But the game needs to be 'fair and balanced', at least for a given definition.

People are just trying to point out there is a reason various things exist, assault troops included, and in many circumstances their use makes sense, though not necessarily in the way you are forced to deploy them on the tabletop. Heavily armed CC units with little to no ranged weaponry has it's uses, and when applied correctly can be very useful. They are specialist units, not generalists, we can see in the fluff they typically are not deployed the way they are on the tabletop.

And, again, yes there is room for improvements, but that is even true of todays militaries. Militaries, by their nature, are hidebound traditionalists. For example, m-16 was junk for the first 10-15 years of its service. It was originally a great weapon utilizing, if I remember correctly, a low spin round driven by a certain type of powder that would tumble upon hitting the target, and was extremely reliable. When the Army got their hands on it they insisted on increasing the rotation and changing the powder to better match traditional weapon design, which transformed it from a reliable gun with high stopping powder to a finicky piece of crap that would wont enemies without putting them down. It took twenty years for the US army to fix the problems they introduced, and they are still working on it today.

No one disagrees that there is room for improvement, they are just trying to point out things aren't nearly as farfetched as some make them out to be, and there is internally consistent reasons things are the way they are.

I thought we were talking about tanks?
As much as i love them, Russ's wouldn't make much sense IRL.
But it's not real life, so they are unstoppab- well, they do die every now and then, don't they? So, Stoppable killing machines.

Remember that the Lemun Russ model doesn't have the proper dimensions.


It is actualy a little longer and wider with the gun being the same size with a larger turret.

This will lead to an overall flattening of its profile, which will give it a better slope to its armor plating.

Combine this with super space armor for it being a semi-practical vehicle.

Uller II wrote:I thought we were talking about tanks?
As much as i love them, Russ's wouldn't make much sense IRL.
But it's not real life, so they are unstoppab- well, they do die every now and then, don't they? So, Stoppable killing machines.

But as has been brought up numerous times, it DOES make sense for the IG's method of warfare. They aren't necessarily the best possible design, but they are a good design. They fit the IG's battle paradigm perfectly: easily maintainable, easily reparable, all terrain, and they work well in formation. Their main drawback, the crew being especially vulnerable due to a high profile and bad deflection surfaces, really anymore of a drawback to IG than modern tanks lackluster performance at traversing trenches compared to WWI tank designs. It isn't a drawback if you just don't care.

We don't care about trench warfare. The IG doesn't care about crew survival. They care than it can be easily patched up and new crew stuffed inside. Which the LR's design accomplishes quite well.

Or the best tank design ever, is my response

Safor wrote:Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

It's more like a bunch of people arguing the usefulness of a chocolate teapot.

The Leman Russ has been designed by a group of miniature designers with the chief aims of producing a model whuch can be easily cast moulded, assembled, painted and look good enough on the shelf to sell. Qualifying or disqualifying it's usefulness as an actual tank is therefore floored on the base of it. Most positives and negatives in said arguments will be purely coincidental to the inspiration of the model.

...though I'm sure that wont stop you.

Yes, obviously they are incidental, that is almost always the case when discussing fluff. That doesn't negate it's value as an intellectual excersize or as entertainment.

Why bother coming to a fluff board if you are just going to take the stance "because they wrote it that way" on everything?

And that is one of the worst comparisons I have ever heard. I mean, I get you are trying to say its silly, but the comparison itself makes no sense. You in fact could discuss the benefits of creating a teapot from chocolate, likely discussing the merits of the material and comparing the drawbacks of the low melting point to whatever other benifits you could come up with, likely coming to the conclusion chocolate is a substandard construction material for the heating of liquids, but may have utility in novelty situations (milk tea parties with edible cookware).

I'm not sure how that is anything like discussing the ramifications and justifications of vehicle design in a fictional universe.

You in fact could discuss the benefits of creating a teapot from chocolate, likely discussing the merits of the material and comparing the drawbacks of the low melting point to whatever other benifits you could come up with, likely coming to the conclusion chocolate is a substandard construction material for the heating of liquids, but may have utility in novelty situations (milk tea parties with edible cookware).

I applaud you riplikash, for actually justifying the existence of a chocolate teapot within one short paragraph - thereby rendering one of my favourite expressions moot...

Well played Sir! Well played!

riplikash wrote:Yes, obviously they are incidental, that is almost always the case when discussing fluff. That doesn't negate it's value as an intellectual excersize or as entertainment.

Why bother coming to a fluff board if you are just going to take the stance "because they wrote it that way" on everything?

And that is one of the worst comparisons I have ever heard. I mean, I get you are trying to say its silly, but the comparison itself makes no sense. You in fact could discuss the benefits of creating a teapot from chocolate, likely discussing the merits of the material and comparing the drawbacks of the low melting point to whatever other benifits you could come up with, likely coming to the conclusion chocolate is a substandard construction material for the heating of liquids, but may have utility in novelty situations (milk tea parties with edible cookware).

I'm not sure how that is anything like discussing the ramifications and justifications of vehicle design in a fictional universe.

You can't liken what I just said to: "because they wrote it that way". I don't believe fluff arguments are pointless. For example discussing which is the most powerful marine chapter is a perfectly decent topic for discussion. You can reference the written background for things like that. Most of the arguments being made here are only referencing a 1/35th scale model's appearance....which, for the resons I have already said, is not designed to stand up to this sort of scrutiny.

And the "comparison" was more along the lines of if anyone made a chocolate teapot it would probably be for eating rather than holding hot beverages. Like a tank which is made to paint and be moved around a table where dice is thrown is not made for waging war.

And as far as practicality is concerned,

The Lemun Russ is, first and formost, extremely cheap and easy to produce, runs on just about any combustable liquid, has impressive firepower, and is easy to operate and maintain.


It doesn't matter if it has relativly poor sloping on its armor and has the subtlety of an atom bomb, if you throw thousands of them at the enemy they will simply overwhealm them.

Compare them to Shermans in WW2. Those things had horribly sloping and were very difficult to hide behind obsticles. yet it carried a fairly impressive gun for taking on Panzer IVs and Stugs(and could be given better ones for taking out Tigers and Panthers) and there were thousands of them.

"Quantity has a quality all its own" -Joseph Stalin


"Cheap and Good Enough" will always beat "Expensive and No Complaints"

Grey Templar wrote:And as far as practicality is concerned,

The Lemun Russ is, first and formost, extremely cheap and easy to produce, runs on just about any combustable liquid, has impressive firepower, and is easy to operate and maintain.


It doesn't matter if it has relativly poor sloping on its armor and has the subtlety of an atom bomb, if you throw thousands of them at the enemy they will simply overwhealm them.

Compare them to Shermans in WW2. Those things had horribly sloping and were very difficult to hide behind obsticles. yet it carried a fairly impressive gun for taking on Panzer IVs and Stugs(and could be given better ones for taking out Tigers and Panthers) and there were thousands of them.

"Quantity has a quality all its own" -Joseph Stalin


"Cheap and Good Enough" will always beat "Expensive and No Complaints"

Now that I think about it, a sherman basically looks like an anorexic Leman Russ. Although I'd have to argue that they had terrible guns until late in the war. It wasn't unheard of for German tanks to shrug off 30 to 40 Sherman rounds. They literally had to keep shooting the panzers until they fell apart. That said, you can see how this strategy works with IG too. Yeah, their tanks may not be top of the line, but they can bring them in rediculous numbers, they're reliable, have good firepower, and are almost unstoppable in force.

Want to look at the strengths of the Leman Russ? Watch an IG player field between 6 and 9 of them in a 1850 game, and watch the opponent break out in a cold sweat. Yeah, he's going to lose a few, maybe even over half, but they'll take out over half your army with them. Not to mention the pure psychological fear factor these things dish out. They just look imposing. Eldar have the fancy crafted grav tanks, Tau have minimalistic grav tanks, space marines have dumpsters on tracks. What do the IG have? They have a tank that looks for all intensive purposes, like its designed to grind you into the dust. And you know why? Because that's exactly what it's made to do. It's not fancy, it's not some ancestral relic, it's a giant friggin tank made to kill things dead.

Which is the theme behind just about everything in IG. It's not flashy, but it gets the job done.

If it's a glass cannon it's not really practical.

Anyway, The IG business has always been slowed. "hurrr throw as much poorly equipped poorly trained men at the enemy as possible hurrr". If you consider the actual amount of resources the Imperium has, there's no good in-universe reason why every tank can't be better designed and every battle group given better tactics.

Wait, you have a problem with the Russ?

Not the Rhino? The tiny tiny Rhino?

BlaxicanX wrote:If it's a glass cannon it's not really practical.

Anyway, The IG business has always been slowed. "hurrr throw as much poorly equipped poorly trained men at the enemy as possible hurrr". If you consider the actual amount of resources the Imperium has, there's no good in-universe reason why every tank can't be better designed and every battle group given better tactics.

No, there really is. Because the resource they have more than anything else is manpower. Technology is barely understood and rare. Worlds are limited, every material resource is valuable.

But people, are not. They literally have more people than they know what to do with. The las gun carried by your average guardsman is literally more valuable than the man holding it, is likely ten times his age, and will likely be in service long after he dies.

Many real world armies have been in the same situation and acted the same way to great success. It isn't the modern fighting technique, where we have more resources and tech than people, and consequently value human lives more, but it is a valid one for their situation.

BlaxicanX wrote:
Anyway, The IG business has always been slowed. "hurrr throw as much poorly equipped poorly trained men at the enemy as possible hurrr". If you consider the actual amount of resources the Imperium has, there's no good in-universe reason why every tank can't be better designed and every battle group given better tactics.

yeah, it does work.

This HAS happened in real life. look up Russian tactics in WW2.

They would literally send in the first wave of tanks to die specifically to give cover to the advancing 2nd wave from their burning husks. They would send wave after wave of infantry forward untill the German machine gunners ran out of ammunition.

Only 1/2 of every infantryman in the Red Army was actually issued a rifle, they were only given ammunition. Those who weren't had to follow those that had one till they got shot and then they would pick up the rifle.



And you assume they don't use tactics. They do, the experienced tanker companies are extremely skilled soldiers.


Finally you have to consider that LRBTs are small beans compared to whats running around the battlefield. You have Super Heavies and big monsters. The tank's profile really doesn't come into effect.

Grey Templar wrote:

yeah, it does work.

This HAS happened in real life. look up Russian tactics in WW2.

They would literally send in the first wave of tanks to die specifically to give cover to the advancing 2nd wave from their burning husks. They would send wave after wave of infantry forward untill the German machine gunners ran out of ammunition.

Only 1/2 of every infantryman in the Red Army was actually issued a rifle, they were only given ammunition. Those who weren't had to follow those that had one till they got shot and then they would pick up the rifle.

while that did happen in the early part of the war, this statement is, by and large, a myth. While individual soviet soldiers might have been of poorer quality that equivalent german or western allied soldiers, by 1944 they were well trained and well supplied as any army. But their operational and strategic approach to warfare was something like that. (Throw whole army groups in headlong assaults at the enemy)

Grey Templar wrote:This HAS happened in real life. look up Russian tactics in WW2.

WW2 era Russia would get the ever living crap kicked out of it by modern day America, even if the US used only half its total military capability. And we'd do the same to China or India or any other country that relies on sheer numbers to win fights. Which is kind of the point. Superior technology+tactics will always > sheer numbers.

And you assume they don't use tactics. They do, the experienced tanker companies are extremely skilled soldiers.

It's not an assumption. Read any Black Library novel or even any of the more detailed stories in the IG codex. The IG uses WW2 tactics, which is why the Elysians are "notable" for their use of modern day tactics. Take the Necropolis story in Gaunt's Ghosts as an example. Why in God's name would you even try to defend a hive against a massive army like that? As if you're in the Lord of the Rings or something. A multiple mile long army of infantry and walkers would have been a huge juicy target for an air strike or orbital bombardment. It's not like they had any anti-air capabilities.

But you see things like that in the universe all the time. Trench warfare? Really? In the 41st Millenium, you're going to build trenches and sit in them for years at a time?

Obviously, these stories are done for the sake of entertainment. But like I said, in-universe there is no excuse for such silliness. There is no excuse to build a 500 mile long trench so you can fight dudes who are staring at you from their own 500 mile trench, while you have ships with guns on them in orbit above.

Finally you have to consider that LRBTs are small beans compared to whats running around the battlefield. You have Super Heavies and big monsters. The tank's profile really doesn't come into effect.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they should stick with an inferior design for the thing.

BlaxicanX wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't mean they should stick with an inferior design for the thing.

except for the fact that the techpriests would literally flip their lids if someone came around with a total redesign of the Leman Russ. Thats the one thing that really hampers them as well. I'm sure somebody came up with a vastly superior tank for IG to use... and they were probably promptly hauled away for tech heresy.

Hence we get armored vehicles that have been around for centuries at a time, because the mechanicus views innovation as a crime, rather than a gift. Yeah they make small modifications, but they're not about to design a new battletank from scratch to replace a model that's been around since the great crusades....

BlaxicanX wrote:"hurrr throw as much poorly equipped poorly trained men at the enemy as possible hurrr".

This is not true, at least as far as for conscripts... If you refer to Cadian Shock Troops and Death Corps of Krieg as "poorly equipped poorly trained men" of course...

MrMoustaffa wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't mean they should stick with an inferior design for the thing.

except for the fact that the techpriests would literally flip their lids if someone came around with a total redesign of the Leman Russ. Thats the one thing that really hampers them as well. I'm sure somebody came up with a vastly superior tank for IG to use... and they were probably promptly hauled away for tech heresy.

Hence we get armored vehicles that have been around for centuries at a time, because the mechanicus views innovation as a crime, rather than a gift. Yeah they make small modifications, but they're not about to design a new battletank from scratch to replace a model that's been around since the great crusades....

Yep, and that's exactly my point. There is no good in-universe explaination for why the Imperium acts the way it does. It's just hopelessly stupid. It is its own worst enemy.

This is not true, at least as far as for conscripts... If you refer to Cadian Shock Troops and Death Corps of Krieg as "poorly equipped poorly trained men" of course...

By modern day standards, I absolutely would. Let me know when the Krieg soldiers fight with every enemy location noted by a UAV hovering thousands of feet above the battlefield and outlined on their HUD's. Lemme know when the Cadian Shock Troops decide to just call in an air-strike on an enemy heavy weapons fortification, instead of taking it head on and diving from cover to cover.

But they don't have UAVs and HUDs, that's the point - they might have some fantastically advanced technology such as the ships in orbit, laser rifles etc. but these are ancient relics and no-one actually knows how they work, everything is ritualised to the point where the manual becomes a devotional prayer book. To use a modern example - say the Mechanicus got hold of your average modern day car. They would literally pray to it to make it work, they don't know how the car starts when the key is turned, only that it does, and they ascribe that to, essentially, magic and divine providence.

UAVs are also considered heretical BTW, unless they were servitor controlled. Any machine intelligence is outlawed completely.

That is strange, I always tough that Leman Russ have HUD, infrared and all that ( hence the "Machine Spirit" - the Mechanicus AI controlling the tank ). They also have hunter missle to fire, adn that require advanced calculations and programming.

Is there anything in fluff to disregard this?

p.s. Mechanicus knows how stuff works ( except the real complicated ones ), the "machine spirit" prayers are just paravan to keep ordinary people to figure out how machines work. Because if that happened they won't need the Mechanicus anymore, are they? Grimdark.

Where does it say LR have Machine Spirits? i know LR ( Land Raider does.... )

Hunter missile have advanced calculation and programming? Source? I think its just an AT rocket... like what we currently have.

LunaHound wrote:Where does it say LR have Machine Spirits? i know LR ( Land Raider does.... )

Leman Russ have it to, as well as any other major Imperial Tank ( except Sentinels at least ). The difference is that machine Spirit of Land Raider is more advanced in terms that it can drive and fire itself even after all crew is dead, while Leman Russ can't.

Hunter missile have advanced calculation and programming? Source? I think its just an AT rocket... like what we currently have.

"They are effectively krak missiles with massively extended range, although only one is mounted on a vehicle due to the vast increase in size. They are also unique in that they are guided weapons with an on-board artificial intelligence, known as a "logis-engine." Sensors in the missile's nose transmits information on the target and surrounding environment to the logis-engine, which guides the missile in flight by manipulating its stabilising fins, allowing the missile to match the target's movements and avoid obstacles. The missile's warhead is an impact fused shaped charge, designed for maximum armour penetration. Other instruments include an internal gyroscope for stable flight and a small battery to power the sensor and logis-engine."
- Imperial Armour Volume Two - Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition, p.251

Brother Coa wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Where does it say LR have Machine Spirits? i know LR ( Land Raider does.... )

Leman Russ have it to, as well as any other major Imperial Tank ( except Sentinels at least ). The difference is that machine Spirit of Land Raider is more advanced in terms that it can drive and fire itself even after all crew is dead, while Leman Russ can't.

Hunter missile have advanced calculation and programming? Source? I think its just an AT rocket... like what we currently have.

"They are effectively krak missiles with massively extended range, although only one is mounted on a vehicle due to the vast increase in size. They are also unique in that they are guided weapons with an on-board artificial intelligence, known as a "logis-engine." Sensors in the missile's nose transmits information on the target and surrounding environment to the logis-engine, which guides the missile in flight by manipulating its stabilising fins, allowing the missile to match the target's movements and avoid obstacles. The missile's warhead is an impact fused shaped charge, designed for maximum armour penetration. Other instruments include an internal gyroscope for stable flight and a small battery to power the sensor and logis-engine."
- Imperial Armour Volume Two - Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition, p.251

Sounds like those things on fighters.... target acquisition or w/e

they also have it in modern tanks.

It seems to boil down to x, y, z in 40k is horribly inefficient or doesn't make strategic or tactical sense, but that's the way it is, b/c it's grimdark...and you know what, I'm actually okay with that. I love 40k lore.

In some ways, part of their appeal(LR design, melee combat....dreadnought legs/feet :p) is in their 'grimdark ineffifiency', TBH. *But*, let's not ever pretend that these elements actually *do* make sense.

(If that point makes any sense)

Ronin-Sage wrote:It seems to boil down to x, y, z in 40k is horribly inefficient or doesn't make strategic or tactical sense, but that's the way it is, b/c it's grimdark...and you know what, I'm actually okay with that. I love 40k lore.

In some ways, part of their appeal(LR design, melee combat....dreadnought legs/feet :p) is in their 'grimdark ineffifiency', TBH. *But*, let's not ever pretend that these elements actually *do* make sense.

(If that point makes any sense)

Certainly, there are many things that are head-scratchingly odd about 40k, and plenty that just seem flatly wrong, or bad, to us. A Dreadnought is just a poor design for, well, doing anything ever. This is just a clear case of GW not having a physicist on their model-design staff; it's also worth pointing out the the proportions of tabletop models are pretty much universally screwed up.

However, as has been pointed out in this very thread, many of the things that are commonly derided as nonsensical could actually have fairly reasonable explanations. By which I mean an explanation that goes beyond 'because they're stupid' or 'because they're religious fanatics' or 'because GRIMDARK'. You have looked at all the points made about the Leman Russ, right? Visually, it's practically identical to modern amphibious armored vehicles. The high track design does actually have certain advantages over the low-slung design of modern MBTs, namely greater flexibility in deployment and less constrained tactical mobility. To the Imperium, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of less effective armor and lower top speed.

Assault Terminators, the other example brought up here of 'nonsensical' things in the Imperium, actually also make sense; they are an elite, highly specialized unit, designed for a very specific kind of fight. The Imperium possesses the resources necessary to create units that specialize to such a radical extent, and their preferred modus operandi (shock assaults from orbit) lend themselves very much to exactly the kind of fighting that Assault Terminators excel in.

In short; dismissing everything that doesn't IMMEDIATELY seem 'advanced' about the Imperium as stupid and nonsensical is, IMO, a case of people not bothering to consider the reasons WHY something might actually be the way it is. There is usually a reason; the cases where you just have to shrug and chalk something up to 'grimdark' are honestly fairly rare.

Is it fair to point out that the artists, writers, developers, and all other people who work at GW were most likely not in the military, were most likely not mechanical engineers with a background in armored vehicle design, and most damning of all, were actually out to design something that looked cool because it was only ever designed to be a model on a table in a game?

I do not want people to think that debate is pointless, we all debate everything in 40k almost daily (for some of us its probably much more than that) but as many posters before I have noted, the Russ fits the grimdark, lost technology and hope for progress vibe. It fits the universe it was put in.

I have to admit, the Dreadnought design is one of the few things I can't think of any justification for beyond tradition/bad understanding of tech. Usually sufficiently advanced propulsion/materials tech and a different approach to warfare provide several good in universe reasons, but unless the dreadnoughts just walk through everything, they are just a weird design. Cool, but... weird.

riplikash wrote:I have to admit, the Dreadnought design is one of the few things I can't think of any justification for beyond tradition/bad understanding of tech. Usually sufficiently advanced propulsion/materials tech and a different approach to warfare provide several good in universe reasons, but unless the dreadnoughts just walk through everything, they are just a weird design. Cool, but... weird.

To be fair though, Dreadnoughts pretty much do walk through everything....

True.

And I have to admit, they would make sense as a kind of mobile turret, especially in urban terrain. They are just weird as the final resting place of a revered warrior. His combat skills are really going to waste in such a limited form. Now a contemptor dreadnought, THERE is a body worthy of a revered warrior.

Tibbsy wrote:But they don't have UAVs and HUDs, that's the point - they might have some fantastically advanced technology such as the ships in orbit, laser rifles etc. but these are ancient relics and no-one actually knows how they work, everything is ritualised to the point where the manual becomes a devotional prayer book. To use a modern example - say the Mechanicus got hold of your average modern day car. They would literally pray to it to make it work, they don't know how the car starts when the key is turned, only that it does, and they ascribe that to, essentially, magic and divine providence.

UAVs are also considered heretical BTW, unless they were servitor controlled. Any machine intelligence is outlawed completely.

How does this negate my point that the Imperium of Man is stupid as hell and their military tactics don't make any sense from an out of universe perspective?

BlaxicanX wrote:How does this negate my point that the Imperium of Man is stupid as hell and their military tactics don't make any sense from an out of universe perspective?

Becaues it does make sense if you take the history, politics, and sociology into account. It's like saying the people in fallout are stupid and don't make sense because they use old crappy guns, make homes out of scrap, and use bottlecaps for money.

It doesn't make you stupid to make the best of a bad situation you can't get yourself out of. It doesn't make you stupid to be trapped in a post apocalyptic dystopia and to not use optimally designed equipment.

The point is, for what they have, and with their limitations, many of the decisions of the Imperium of Man DO make sense from an out of universe perspective. It's a post apocalyptic story about a future space empire doing the best they can in a crappy situation. Of COURSE they aren't using optimally designed equipment, that is the POINT of post apocalyptic dyspepsia stories.

But no, your right. Those people in mad max were stupid for making a bus into a tank. Don't they know the high profile makes it vulnerable and that the four wheel design is suboptimal for all terrain movement? There are WAY better designs out there than some stupid bus with armor bolted on.

You get that is what you are saying, right? The Leman Russ is a TRACTOR! A farming vehicle with armor and guns strapped on. They use it because of the designs they had available it was the most suited for their needs, and best suited their style of warfare. And so people have gone on at length to explain that to you.

But you just keep going on and on about how stupid they are for not using an optimal tank design in a post apocalyptic dystopia. 40k is a mix between star trek, mad max, and judge dredd. The sooner you come to grips with that the happier you will be.

Whats funny is that the IG does have orbital relays, and targeting matrics, which im assuming translates into UAVs and HUDs. Their tanks have sensor suites and auspexes which are super radar or something similar. And as for poorly equiped you do realise Flak armor can stop a .50cal round. And lasguns are roughly equal to modern assualt rifles, only they dont require massive baggage trains to carry their ammo. The IG is only poorly equiped compared to space marines.

As for space and air assets, it standing naval policy to not use orbital weapons once troops have hit dirtside. And air assets are maurader bombers, thunderbolt fighter bombers, vulture gunships, and vendetta gunships. There their, only its more heroic to read about mass infantry charges, rather then air strikes.

As for the Russ, it must be a damn fine tractor, seeing as its the best tank in the galaxy. Hardly any thing can scratch it and it can run on any combustable material.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:As for the Russ, it must be a damn fine tractor, seeing as its the best tank in the galaxy. Hardly any thing can scratch it and it can run on any combustable material.

Well...yes. It is. It's STC tech after all. That is kind of the point, Golden Age humanity could make better tractors than most other factions can make tanks.

Though I don't know where you get the idea it is the 'best tank in the galaxy'. The Imperium has quite a few superior designs, as do the Eldar, Dark Eldar, Space Marines, Adeptus Mechanus, and Necrons. They just don't fit into the regular tabletop game.

For what it does though, it is a darn good tank.

I dont include super heavies. Theyre pretty rare. Really what can compete with a leman russ? Hammerhead. (technically its a gunship) and well thats about it. Maybe falcons. Predators get demolished, and the necrons really dont have anything. Land Raiders are less tanks and more transports.

*Sings*

If you are wondering how he eats and breaths
And other science facts....

Just repeat to yourself; "It's just a show".
"I should really just relax".

*Sings*

riplikash wrote:
Though I don't know where you get the idea it is the 'best tank in the galaxy'. The Imperium has quite a few superior designs, as do the Eldar, Dark Eldar, Space Marines, Adeptus Mechanus, and Necrons. They just don't fit into the regular tabletop game.

Because it is reliable, cheap, durable and has big firepower.
Only Hammerhead and Prism Tank can challenge him in battle, and even they would lose against Vanquisher pattern.
It's 'best tank in the galaxy' because of it - the fact that even advanced alien civilizations can't match simple Human technology.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I dont include super heavies. Theyre pretty rare. Really what can compete with a leman russ? Hammerhead. (technically its a gunship) and well thats about it. Maybe falcons. Predators get demolished, and the necrons really dont have anything. Land Raiders are less tanks and more transports.

That's an artificial distinction that exists for the purposes game balance. You can't just say it's the most powerful tank because we aren't counting the more powerful tanks. That is all a super heavy is, something too powerful to be used within the scale of of 40k, a medium skirmish game. Yes, the Leman Russ is on the upper end of what the Warhammer 40k tabletop game will allow. That doesn't make it the most powerful tank in the galaxy.

It also seems fairly arbitrary to exclude the Leman Russ, hammerhead, various Necron vehicle mounted weaponry, and even monolith. The Leman Russ doesn't count because it holds people too? And there is a patter that houses a demolisher canon instead. The hammerhead and Necron vehicles don't count because they don't use tracks?

If you define the class so that everything more powerful is excluded, you can make whichever vehicle you like the most powerful.

I excluded super heavies due to rareity. When people see leman russes it is no big deal, if people see baneblades its the apocypse. Its because its not rare its the better tank then the super heavies.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I dont include super heavies. Theyre pretty rare. Really what can compete with a leman russ? Hammerhead. (technically its a gunship) and well thats about it. Maybe falcons. Predators get demolished, and the necrons really dont have anything. Land Raiders are less tanks and more transports.

Doomsday Arks and Monoliths would like a word with you.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I excluded super heavies due to rareity. When people see leman russes it is no big deal, if people see baneblades its the apocypse. Its because its not rare its the better tank then the super heavies.

I'm sorry, it just feels like you are trying to twist things to support your argument now. Now it is a better tank because it is more common? You must see you are in a circular logic loop now. Your original argument was it is common because it is the bast. Now you contend it is the best because it is common.

The AK-47 isn't the worlds best gun because it is the most common. Iron isn't a superior building material because it is more common. Conversly steel isn't a better building material than gold because it is more common. It is a better building material because it's better for that purpose.

The LR just has no claim on being 'the best tank in the galaxy'. It's good for it's purpose, and easy to produce, but there are certainly better tanks out there.

And again, apocalypse is a tabletop distinction and has nothing to do with rarity. Most battles in the Imperium are going to be significantly larger than anything ever reproduced in Apocolypse. It just doesn't make for a good miniature game.

One thing that was pointed out earlier, and it bears remembering, is that the Leman Russ is DESIGNED to be generalist. It can be redesigned, rebuilt or outfitted for a ton of different duties, like the Chimera. This tends to detract from a more specialized, purpose built vehicle (like alot of modern tanks) but its not neccesarily an inherently bad thing. Which is kind of the point. This sort of discussion shouldn't be in terms of 'good/bad' in broad, general strokes, it shoudl be talking about advantages/disadvantages and general tradeoffs in the design. A Leman Russ of equal technology would lose to an M1 Abrams of equal technology because the M1 Abrams is DESIGNED to kill tanks, and it is very good at that. But in order to do that it has its own set of drawbacks and limitations that suit the US style of warfare (and economy and logistics - these are HUGE advantages that they rarely have challenged). But that doesn't mean the US way is always the best way (The Russians have had different ways of doing things, and depending on who you ask I've heard they can do as good or better.)

Hell google 'M1 Abrams vs T90" - the internet is full of threats of epople trying to decide which tank is better, but it usually comes down to how you define good. Same for the russ really.

And I'll echo the 'models aren't really accurate reflections' angle. I mean look at the fluff and compare it to the model. The Russ (and Vanquisher) were meant to carry 120mm smoothbores and store something like up to 40 rounds of such ammo in the tank. Yet the model depicts a barrel I could stick my entire head in, if not my torso. We're talking 8" to 10"+ guns naval guns here. Unless they have Hercules as weapons loader and can store ammo in pocket dimensions there is clearly a discrepancy.

Oh and I just recalled in the 5th edition Necron Codex, remember that bit about the Russ's weapons being taken over and how the design was like.. shackled or held back from its true potential.

Connor MacLeod wrote:it usually comes down to how you define good. Same for the russ really.

I agree with you on this line, but I don't think that's the heart of the matter.

The real problem is not whether the LRBT is good or not, it is simply that its design could be WAY better.

As said by the OP, having vertical sides is a major drawback to resilience, the tracks are too thin, the tank is too high, etc...

The LRBT makes up for a good tank, but using larger tracks, sloped slides and a smaller chassis would make it MUCH better, for no real additional cost (a sloped armour plate is actually the same as a vertical armour plate, except that it is... sloped).

Laodamia wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:it usually comes down to how you define good. Same for the russ really.

I agree with you on this line, but I don't think that's the heart of the matter.

The real problem is not whether the LRBT is good or not, it is simply that its design could be WAY better.

As said by the OP, having vertical sides is a major drawback to resilience, the tracks are too thin, the tank is too high, etc...

The LRBT makes up for a good tank, but using larger tracks, sloped slides and a smaller chassis would make it MUCH better, for no real additional cost (a sloped armour plate is actually the same as a vertical armour plate, except that it is... sloped).

And no one has disagreed with that. They have just explained why it is the way it is, and pointed out these are not huge drawbacks for the Imperial method of warfare.

So, is anyone going to answer my question about the malcador? If it's a tank from the ground up, or just a combine harvester with a howitzer glued onto it?

It depends on what you mean by "best tank"


If we include only direct combat related factors then the LRBT is clearly not the best, but combat isn't everything.

I bring back my Sherman tank example.

They were decidedly outclassed by the Panzer IV and Panther tanks, but because there were a dozen Shermans for every Panther the advantage was moot. And once bigger guns were put on the Sherman then the Panzers were suddenly in huge trouble.

The Lemun Russ has decent armor, a big gun, and is VERY CHEAP to build and is incredibly rugged and simple. The cheap and rugged part is the real winner.

German tanks were well designed from a combat perspective, but as for their interior systems they were often shoddely put together. Gas lines would run right over the carborators, making them prone to fires and breaking down. They were also not designed with field repairs in mind, needing to be towed to a workshop to be properly fixed. If something as simple as a belt broke the crew would find it nearly impossable to fix it.


if its cheap and good enough for your purposes, you can throw hundreds and hundreds of them at the enemy.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:So, is anyone going to answer my question about the malcador? If it's a tank from the ground up, or just a combine harvester with a howitzer glued onto it?

Well, the IA books don't say much about the Malcador's origins. It supposedly predates the LRBT. It was designed as a heavy battle tank, to be used as a stopgap measure when it became clear that equipping the entire Imperial Army with land raiders would be impossible.

So it's not really an over-sized harvester. At least as far as we know...

But when we think about it, the rhino and the LR were originally exploration vehicles. So it would be fair to assume that the malcador was once a tractor.

Lasguns are based off of flashlight STCs. :p

riplikash wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I excluded super heavies due to rareity. When people see leman russes it is no big deal, if people see baneblades its the apocypse. Its because its not rare its the better tank then the super heavies.

I'm sorry, it just feels like you are trying to twist things to support your argument now. Now it is a better tank because it is more common? You must see you are in a circular logic loop now. Your original argument was it is common because it is the bast. Now you contend it is the best because it is common.

The AK-47 isn't the worlds best gun because it is the most common. Iron isn't a superior building material because it is more common. Conversly steel isn't a better building material than gold because it is more common. It is a better building material because it's better for that purpose.

The LR just has no claim on being 'the best tank in the galaxy'. It's good for it's purpose, and easy to produce, but there are certainly better tanks out there.

And again, apocalypse is a tabletop distinction and has nothing to do with rarity. Most battles in the Imperium are going to be significantly larger than anything ever reproduced in Apocolypse. It just doesn't make for a good miniature game.

I never said its common because its the best. I said since its more common then the super heavies its a better tank. A super heavy regiment has 12 ish tanks. A armored company has 12 ish leman russes. Their far more common and no other tank of the same size can dish out or withstand the punishment the russ can. Now there are better designs, or faster tanks, but the combined duriblity, ease of manufactor, fuel usage, and fire power and cost make it the best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps also ive been talking from an in game tone the whole time. I literally meant if a baneblade shows up its the apocalyse

CthuluIsSpy wrote:So, is anyone going to answer my question about the malcador? If it's a tank from the ground up, or just a combine harvester with a howitzer glued onto it?

I answered you back on page 2.

We aren't told, but from the fluff it is an older, inferior design than the LR, heavier and with an unreliable engine.

So if i were to theorize...

My guess would be due to it's similarities to the LR and other STC tractor platforms it was pieced together from various existing STC tractor technologies and existing non-STC technologies by the Ad Mech. When the LR STC was discovered it was quickly phased out.

That's just guessing, obviously, since we are not told outright.

Grey Templar wrote:It depends on what you mean by "best tank"


If we include only direct combat related factors then the LRBT is clearly not the best, but combat isn't everything.

I bring back my Sherman tank example.

They were decidedly outclassed by the Panzer IV and Panther tanks, but because there were a dozen Shermans for every Panther the advantage was moot. And once bigger guns were put on the Sherman then the Panzers were suddenly in huge trouble.

The Lemun Russ has decent armor, a big gun, and is VERY CHEAP to build and is incredibly rugged and simple. The cheap and rugged part is the real winner.

German tanks were well designed from a combat perspective, but as for their interior systems they were often shoddely put together. Gas lines would run right over the carborators, making them prone to fires and breaking down. They were also not designed with field repairs in mind, needing to be towed to a workshop to be properly fixed. If something as simple as a belt broke the crew would find it nearly impossable to fix it.


if its cheap and good enough for your purposes, you can throw hundreds and hundreds of them at the enemy.

Sherman tanks were not outclassed by Panzer IV tanks ( they were at worst outclassed, at least until upgunned, by the Panzer IV's KWK40, which was a gunnery problem and not a general design problem ) and the Sherman, which is a quite sensible design, is in no way comparable to the abomination that is the Leman Russ.
The Leman Russ is unusualy large, carries far too many weapons ( sponsons are usualy not a good decision ) at a far too low speed with a far too mediocre firepower ( that is, the tank's 120mm cannon is good, but not breathtaking ) to justify it's strange design.
If you want a "primitive" but well made tank then look no further than the Sherman (yes, i am serious about that one ) or the T-34.

The Leman Russ's size increases it's weight, which reduces speed, and makes the tank an easier target. The very thin and exposed tracks increase groundpressure ( therefore reducing overland mobility ) while the sponsons create structural weaknesses. There is no reason why the Mechanicus couldn't create a tank which eliminates these weaknesses without actualy making the tank more expensive or difficult to produce. After all, it's the tanks very shape which is to fault and not the technology by itself.

KingDeath wrote:
The Leman Russ's size increases it's weight, which reduces speed, and makes the tank an easier target. The very thin and exposed tracks increase groundpressure ( therefore reducing overland mobility ) while the sponsons create structural weaknesses. There is no reason why the Mechanicus couldn't create a tank which eliminates these weaknesses without actualy making the tank more expensive or difficult to produce. After all, it's the tanks very shape which is to fault and not the technology by itself.

You really aren't saying anything new here. Most everyone agrees with you about this. But religious dogma prevents the AdMech from altering the design, as it comes from a holy STC. They wont change it.

But its strengths, which have been mentioned several times, make it a better choice than whatever non-STC design the AdMech can come up with.

I find this funny. Do you not know how tradition bound the admec and the imperium is as a whole. The razorback is a "new" unproven technology with only a mere 4000 years under its belt. Compared to the rhino and predator which are pre heresey.

The russ is just as old and battle proven. Any new admec design will take another 5-10k years to go into effect. So a new mbt will be in warhammer 50k. And even then traditionalists will find the russ to be better since its not a "new unproven tank"

riplikash wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:How does this negate my point that the Imperium of Man is stupid as hell and their military tactics don't make any sense from an out of universe perspective?

Becaues it does make sense if you take the history, politics, and sociology into account. It's like saying the people in fallout are stupid and don't make sense because they use old crappy guns, make homes out of scrap, and use bottlecaps for money.

The rest of your argument is a non-sequitur, so I'm going to focus on just this part.

The situation in Fallout/Mad Max and the situation the Imperium of Man is faced with can't be compared because they're entirely different. In the Fallout/Mad Max universe, the factions make do with what they have because they lack resources and technological know-how. Their worlds have been bombed into the stone age and as a result they have no infrastructure, no materials with which to make decent technology and no unification. So building a tank out of welded forks and scrap metal is not a matter of stupidity, it's a matter of being gak out of luck.

Conversely, the Imperium of Man has a nigh infinite amount of resources; enough that they can mass produce pretty much anything they want and fight full scale wars on thousands of planets simultaneously. So what is the reason for why they can't create UAV's, something that would save hundreds if not thousands of lives in battle and who knows how much money in destroyed equipment? What's the reason for why the Imperium can't redefine the leman Russ so that it's more efficient and more durable, and still costs the same to make? What's the reason for why the IG prefer to fight mass infantry battles consisting of hundreds of thousands of troops, instead of simply letting those Imperial Navy ships hanging around in orbit picking their noses use surgical strikes to destroy the majority of the enemies ground forces before they even engage Imperium forces?

The out of universe answer to all these questions is: For entertainment. The WH40K universe is a lot more entertaining now with massive WW2 style battles and epic explosions and heroic Guardsmen and Inquisitors and Speyce Muhreens running around. There's nothing wrong with that.

The in-universe answer is: Because the Imperium doesn't want to. <--- That is stupid.

The Imperium's reasoning for the first two questions is basically: "Well yes we could actually afford to redesign the Leman Russ so that's its even more cost-affective than it is now, and yes we could develop things such as UAV's so that our troops on the ground are never taken by surprised or ambushed and we can see all of the enemies movements. Buuuut we won't do either of those things because that would be heresy!

"Because it's heresy" is not a good reason for not doing something. It's a stupid reason for not doing something. That's like saying that you could have prevented that 8 year old from running into the street and getting hit by a car but chose not too because you would have had to run in order to catch him and running is against your religion. <--- Not a justification.

You don't understand, it is HERESY to develop technology that is offensive to the Machine God.

If it isn't an STC, it is outside of the Omnissiah's creation and is offensive. The Lemun Russ is an STC and thus Sacred.



Now, the Ad Mech does conduct technological advancements, but they must be shown to be part of the Omnissiah's will. Essentially, each piece of technology that is sanctioned is directly made by the Omnissiah working through the Techpriest that made the original design. It must be shown that it was indeed inspired by the Omnissiah.

With such a system in place, progress will be extremely slow. As such, designs that are sub-optimal compared to what they could be will continue to be used.


The LRBT has worked for 10,000 years, why change it?

Laodamia wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:it usually comes down to how you define good. Same for the russ really.

I agree with you on this line, but I don't think that's the heart of the matter.

The real problem is not whether the LRBT is good or not, it is simply that its design could be WAY better.

As said by the OP, having vertical sides is a major drawback to resilience, the tracks are too thin, the tank is too high, etc...

The LRBT makes up for a good tank, but using larger tracks, sloped slides and a smaller chassis would make it MUCH better, for no real additional cost (a sloped armour plate is actually the same as a vertical armour plate, except that it is... sloped).

Any 'generalist' design is something that can 'always be better'. Tradeoffs always mean sacrificing one thing to get another. The 'typical' Leman russ in the artworks is a poor design as an anti-tank vehicle. Does that mean its neccesarily the only design? Probably not. Russes like Chimera chassis are endlessly moddable. Can they change everything? Possibly not. But in making it, for example, a better tank killer you're going to incur some other sort of tradeoff - it will lose infantry fighting ability, it will be higher tech (and thus harder to build, maintain, and repair. Not to mention probably more expensive.)

That's part and parcel of IG philsoophy and it extends to everything - from their small arms to their vehicles to probably even their knapsacks.

Grey Templar wrote:You don't understand, it is HERESY to develop technology that is offensive to the Machine God.

If it isn't an STC, it is outside of the Omnissiah's creation and is offensive. The Lemun Russ is an STC and thus Sacred.



Now, the Ad Mech does conduct technological advancements, but they must be shown to be part of the Omnissiah's will. Essentially, each piece of technology that is sanctioned is directly made by the Omnissiah working through the Techpriest that made the original design. It must be shown that it was indeed inspired by the Omnissiah.

With such a system in place, progress will be extremely slow. As such, designs that are sub-optimal compared to what they could be will continue to be used.


The LRBT has worked for 10,000 years, why change it?

You're right, but I would point out that the AdMech can be suspiciously 'flexible' on what is and isn't heresy depending on the person (or faction) involved or what purposes or ends it serves. The AdMech can get downright liberal with indulgences if it means saving their own backsides or territory. Not unlike some real life religions, really.

Grey Templar wrote:You don't understand, it is HERESY to develop technology that is offensive to the Machine God.

And who gives a gak? Why is it a problem if "the machine spirit", which doesn't even actually exist, is offended?

And just to head off at the pass any fools who try to jump in here with something like "the machine spirit does exist!", where the heck was this "machine spirit" when the Imperium was secular and didn't believe in any sort of spirits/gods pre-heresey? You know, that time period when mankind's technological evolution was off the charts and they were inventing all kinds of new stuff nilly-willy?

Furthermore, just to put the nail in the coffin, no other faction in the Galaxy gives a crap about "the machine God" and the Imperium therefore considers their machine creations to be "heresy". Yet, that doesn't stop those "heresy" machines from killing the crap out of Imperium forces on a daily basis.

BlaxicanX wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:You don't understand, it is HERESY to develop technology that is offensive to the Machine God.

And who gives a gak? Why is it a problem if "the machine spirit", which doesn't even actually exist, is offended?

And just to head off at the pass any fools who try to jump in here with something like "the machine spirit does exist!", where the heck was this "machine spirit" when the Imperium was secular and didn't believe in any sort of spirits/gods pre-heresey? You know, that time period when mankind's technological evolution was off the charts and they were inventing all kinds of new stuff nilly-willy?

Furthermore, just to put the nail in the coffin, no other faction in the Galaxy gives a crap about "the machine God" and the Imperium therefore considers their machine creations to be "heresy". Yet, that doesn't stop those "heresy" machines from killing the crap out of Imperium forces on a daily basis.

First off, watch your language.

Now, the Machine Spirit DOES exist. It is VERY real.

It is the Omnissiah, the result of the influence of the Void Dragon on Mankind's technological progress.

The Void Dragon, at the behest of the Emperor, made Mankinds technology progress along a certain path. The STC was a creation to ensure it would remain unspoiled until the Emperor's plans came to completion.

All of this was happening during the whole Dark Age of Technology. The Emperor also worked from the shadows to ensure it would happen this way.

"Watch my language".. hahaha. Who are you, my Dad? I wasn't aware "crap" was a bad word worthy of contempt.

Anyway, could you provide some official sources for this, please?

Thinking about it, does the VD even exist anymore? I don't remember the newest Necron Codex mentioning it.

ifStatement wrote:It's based on a real life tank.

The WW1 emhar mark 4...




...with a turret.

You'd think they might go with something a bit better than ww1 tech level in the 41st millennium, but like others have said you can't read into it too much. Even the likes of Jules Verne's science fiction falls apart under close scrutiny...and he actually tried.

while Rhomboid designs of Leman Russ is based on Brits Mk4
the actual design history was of that Leman Russ is modified from french Char B1 Bis which GW purchased a license much early on. modified to 'fit all kinda warfare'
the 'stocky' aesthetic means that it can traverse through a narrow alley. something bigger tanks like Baneblade can't.

Personally I DISLIKE Leman Russ design. the IA books cited that Leman Russ has coilspring suspension system. i believe it works with hydraulic control systems.
the new fluff says that Lenman Russ is more complex than the older ones. there's even more simpler tanks once used by Kriegsche. the Panzerkampfwagen Ragnarok.

http://homepage.mac.com/james.clay/iblog/B233824576/C1864165285/E1807570321/index.html hit the link to see closeups.

EmilCrane wrote:As an amateur student of armored warfare this has been bugging me for a very long time now.

The leman russ is possibly one of the worst designed AFV's I've ever seen.

Its incredibly high, meaning it would be quite difficult to go hull down in it. The sides are flat and huge, you would hardly bounce anyhting. Gun depression would be awful due to the location of the hull mount. The turret is tiny, barely looks like it would fit the commander. Tracks also are too thin, meaning poor cross country performance. To top it all off, there's too much "stuff" on the hull front, leading to shot traps.

So, how in gods name did anyone think this was a good design?

Because no one involved with or that knew anything about actual armor had anything to do with the design. Sort of like how no one who had passed biology had anything to do with the fluff for SM biology.

BlaxicanX wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:This HAS happened in real life. look up Russian tactics in WW2.

WW2 era Russia would get the ever living crap kicked out of it by modern day America, even if the US used only half its total military capability. And we'd do the same to China or India or any other country that relies on sheer numbers to win fights. Which is kind of the point. Superior technology+tactics will always > sheer numbers.

And you assume they don't use tactics. They do, the experienced tanker companies are extremely skilled soldiers.

It's not an assumption. Read any Black Library novel or even any of the more detailed stories in the IG codex. The IG uses WW2 tactics, which is why the Elysians are "notable" for their use of modern day tactics. Take the Necropolis story in Gaunt's Ghosts as an example. Why in God's name would you even try to defend a hive against a massive army like that? As if you're in the Lord of the Rings or something. A multiple mile long army of infantry and walkers would have been a huge juicy target for an air strike or orbital bombardment. It's not like they had any anti-air capabilities.

But you see things like that in the universe all the time. Trench warfare? Really? In the 41st Millenium, you're going to build trenches and sit in them for years at a time?

Obviously, these stories are done for the sake of entertainment. But like I said, in-universe there is no excuse for such silliness. There is no excuse to build a 500 mile long trench so you can fight dudes who are staring at you from their own 500 mile trench, while you have ships with guns on them in orbit above.

even as of present, infantryman wearing a good armor still needs to seek cover while doin' gunfight. Where's Cpt. Jake and some other veterans from Iraq/Afghanistan to do conversations here? but i've heard that even as of now. you should do entrenchment, not only to get 4+ cover save. but also to provide accommodations in the campaign for frontline troops. until a proper base is built. (and given that you're standing on a soft ground) an infantryman still needs to dig one's own foxhole/slit trench. then upgrade it over time. sometimes the upgrades make a very long trenches.

i guess that IG is also using 'fireteams' concepts, check the dex. see the Special Weapons squad entry.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
However, as has been pointed out in this very thread, many of the things that are commonly derided as nonsensical could actually have fairly reasonable explanations. By which I mean an explanation that goes beyond 'because they're stupid' or 'because they're religious fanatics' or 'because GRIMDARK'. You have looked at all the points made about the Leman Russ, right? Visually, it's practically identical to modern amphibious armored vehicles. The high track design does actually have certain advantages over the low-slung design of modern MBTs, namely greater flexibility in deployment and less constrained tactical mobility. To the Imperium, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of less effective armor and lower top speed.

Ignoring opposing arguments is not a good way to conduct a debate. There ARE, in fact, strong points in FAVOR of exactly the design that you claim is so dumb.

Lone Cat wrote:even as of present, infantryman wearing a good armor still needs to seek cover while doin' gunfight. Where's Cpt. Jake and some other veterans from Iraq/Afghanistan to do conversations here? but i've heard that even as of now. you should do entrenchment, not only to get 4+ cover save. but also to provide accommodations in the campaign for frontline troops. until a proper base is built. (and given that you're standing on a soft ground) an infantryman still needs to dig one's own foxhole/slit trench. then upgrade it over time. sometimes the upgrades make a very long trenches.

i guess that IG is also using 'fireteams' concepts, check the dex. see the Special Weapons squad entry.

Of course; cover is good. Fortifications are also nice.

That's a far cry from WW1 trench warfare, though.

@Bezerker: You quoted yourself, so I dunno who you're talking too.

BlaxicanX wrote:

Of course; cover is good. Fortifications are also nice.

That's a far cry from WW1 trench warfare, though.

@Bezerker: You quoted yourself, so I dunno who you're talking too.

To you. I quoted myself because the point was on an earlier page, and it's much easier to reference it when it's right in front of the participants. And, as I said, there are in fact some pretty good reasons for the Imperium to field a tank with high, sheer sides and massive treads. Minor details can certainly be debated, and yes, there are things in the universe which make little sense, but honestly the number of severity of those things are vastly over-emphasized, the Leman Russ being a case in point.

Interesting. Well, if you don't have any issues with anything I specifically said, I guess I'll just... nod, or something.

BlaxicanX wrote:
The situation in Fallout/Mad Max and the situation the Imperium of Man is faced with can't be compared because they're entirely different. In the Fallout/Mad Max universe, the factions make do with what they have because they lack resources and technological know-how. Their worlds have been bombed into the stone age and as a result they have no infrastructure, no materials with which to make decent technology and no unification. So building a tank out of welded forks and scrap metal is not a matter of stupidity, it's a matter of being gak out of luck.

Conversely, the Imperium of Man has a nigh infinite amount of resources; enough that they can mass produce pretty much anything they want and fight full scale wars on thousands of planets simultaneously. So what is the reason for why they can't create UAV's, something that would save hundreds if not thousands of lives in battle and who knows how much money in destroyed equipment? What's the reason for why the Imperium can't redefine the leman Russ so that it's more efficient and more durable, and still costs the same to make? What's the reason for why the IG prefer to fight mass infantry battles consisting of hundreds of thousands of troops, instead of simply letting those Imperial Navy ships hanging around in orbit picking their noses use surgical strikes to destroy the majority of the enemies ground forces before they even engage Imperium forces?

The out of universe answer to all these questions is: For entertainment. The WH40K universe is a lot more entertaining now with massive WW2 style battles and epic explosions and heroic Guardsmen and Inquisitors and Speyce Muhreens running around. There's nothing wrong with that.

The in-universe answer is: Because the Imperium doesn't want to. <--- That is stupid.

The Imperium's reasoning for the first two questions is basically: ";Well yes we could actually afford to redesign the Leman Russ so that's its even more cost-affective than it is now, and yes we could develop things such as UAV's so that our troops on the ground are never taken by surprised or ambushed and we can see all of the enemies movements. Buuuut we won't do either of those things because that would be heresy!

"Because it's heresy" is not a good reason for not doing something. It's a stupid reason for not doing something. That's like saying that you could have prevented that 8 year old from running into the street and getting hit by a car but chose not too because you would have had to run in order to catch him and running is against your religion. <--- Not a justification.

Bolded the sections to which I was replying. They don't redesign it because it WOULDN'T be either more efficient or more cost-effective.

Your arguments about UAVs and orbital bombardment are a related but not directly relevant discussion; it was those lines, in the context of this thread, which drew my eye and made it clear that you hadn't actually read a lot of the thread; or, at least, that you hadn't bothered to think about it and formulate a response. So there's something you specifically said, with which I have issues.

Huh. I think you're right that the Imperium hasn't changed the Leman Russ because they think its fine as is (though it seems the guy I was arguing with prior feels otherwise). I don't see how that contradicts any of my arguments thus far, though. I'm aware that the Imperium does what the Imperium does because that's how it wants to do things... that's actually tautological. Now, if your argument is that they shouldn't change the design because the current design is more efficient toward the end goal of killing all the non-Imperium factions, then, well, we're in contention.

For the future, if you want to get my attention then take measures to actually address me via quotes or something, because you're right. Once I get into a 1 on 1 discussion with someone I basically have tunnel vision, as I'm not emotionally invested enough in an internet forum to wear myself out trying to to respond to multiple people at once. You know what I mean?

BlaxicanX wrote:Huh. I think you're right that the Imperium hasn't changed the Leman Russ because they think its fine as is (though it seems the guy I was arguing with prior feels otherwise). I don't see how that contradicts any of my arguments thus far, though. I'm aware that the Imperium does what the Imperium does because that's how it wants to do things... that's actually tautological. Now, if your argument is that they shouldn't change the design because the current design is more efficient toward the end goal of killing all the non-Imperium factions, then, well, we're in contention.

For the future, if you want to get my attention then take measures to actually address me via quotes or something, because you're right. Once I get into a 1 on 1 discussion with someone I basically have tunnel vision, as I'm not emotionally invested enough in an internet forum to wear myself out trying to to respond to multiple people at once. You know what I mean?

I understand completely; happens to me too! I just sometimes get a bit irritated when a point's been made a couple times, and doesn't seem to have been addressed. I certainly get irritated at myself when I catch myself ignoring arguments, even by mistake.

Actually, my argument about the Leman Russ is just a wee bit more complex. As it stands, the Leman Russ does a BUNCH of things pretty well; it strikes a compromise between maneuverability and durability which is weighted towards maneuverability. With the high tracks, it can probably traverse much steeper slopes than modern MBTs can; the design seems to indicate that it is amphibious, which would open up a lot of tactical options in usage, and because it's relatively narrow it can maneuver effectively in tighter spaces.

But the most important bit isn't actually tactical, it's logistical. Logistics are the real limiting factor for the Imperium; yes, they've got ludicrous amounts of resources, but they have to get all those resources to the battlefield after they've been turned into tanks and fuel and ammo, and the transport stage is where the crunch hits them. The Leman Russ is, essentially, a partial solution to the massive problem of conducting armored warfare across interstellar distances. If the Imperium altered the design of the Leman Russ to be a low-slung, slope-armored, purpose-built modern-style MBT, that would make it unable to traverse hills and trenches, remove its swimming ability, and sharply limit maneuverability in close quarters. That would mean that they'd need two or three more, different purpose-built vehicles - specialist AAVs, specialist trench-crossing vehicles, specialist high-altitude combat vehicles, etc - to fulfill the roles that the Leman Russ fulfills now.

Would they get better performance per vehicle that way? Oh, doubtless. But now they're transporting two or three extra types of tank in the same ships, each of which is good for one and only one job, which effectively means that they have sharply cut their available armored strength in any given situation (not to mention further complicated their already-horrible logistical issues). With the design as it is, by contrast, they can simply roll the Leman Russes up the loading ramp, stock the transport with standard spare parts, fuel and ammunition, and be fairly confident that no matter what situation the regiment finds itself facing, the Leman Russes will be able to deal with it; not perfectly, but pretty well. The way I see it, that flexibility and simplicity is much more valuable than the benefits that would be gained from tighter specialization of armored vehicles are.

Im confused.

The versatility of the Russes ... are they approved in this thread because physics and engineering wise they actually work?

Or are the arguments saying "they work" because the fluff says it works?

There is a difference guys.

Ronin-Sage wrote:Lasguns are based off of flashlight STCs. :p

It's not that, it's just that armor and weapons of everybody else in the universe are seriously overpowered.

as if flak armor and scraps of metal are ....

Brother Coa wrote:

Ronin-Sage wrote:Lasguns are based off of flashlight STCs. :p

It's not that, it's just that armor and weapons of everybody else in the universe are seriously overpowered.

Given that a race is not a chaos aligned.
1. Some xenos are way ancient beyond the mankind. they did fight wars since their bosses says so (Eldar VS Necrons). by the pre-slaaneshi Eldar. i believe they have weaker levy troops like what everyone believe IG is. but since after the fall. Eldar (and its dark brethren) became focused on combat quality. resulting in a basic troops wearing plate maile carapace armor.
2. Necrons simply have a very advanced science. simetimes far more advanced than Eldars and T'au.
3. Taus are caste-based society and might have fought Eldar before encountering humans. boths aren't so numerous compared to humans
4. Nids are simply built for kill.
5. Orks also ancient beyond human. but about them having terran tech. dunno if it is actually 'brainboyz' technology? but Ork folklore said that brainboyz are ancient beyond humans and had seen eldars fighting necrons before. however. it is said that Ork guns are wildly inaccurate and heavily unreliable.

But i don't know whether did the IG really modelled after ancient terra bureaucracy or is it a succcessor of 20th/21st century military powers?

Lone Cat wrote:
But i don't know whether did the IG really modelled after ancient terra bureaucracy or is it a succcessor of 20th/21st century military powers?

Imperial Guard is Human military in general. Strategies, uniforms, customs and all other things depends on the world in origin.

riplikash wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:So, is anyone going to answer my question about the malcador? If it's a tank from the ground up, or just a combine harvester with a howitzer glued onto it?

I answered you back on page 2.

We aren't told, but from the fluff it is an older, inferior design than the LR, heavier and with an unreliable engine.

So if i were to theorize...

My guess would be due to it's similarities to the LR and other STC tractor platforms it was pieced together from various existing STC tractor technologies and existing non-STC technologies by the Ad Mech. When the LR STC was discovered it was quickly phased out.

That's just guessing, obviously, since we are not told outright.

Aw damn. sorry, I didn't see your response there.
Thanks.

One thing I just realized, does anybody know if they've ever made a cut away diagram of the inside of a Leman Russ? For example, where the crew sits, where the engine is, how the ammo is stored, etc?

That might shed light into a lot of the things we've been debating in this thread. For example, maybe the tank is so tall and narrow because the engine is very tall and wouldn't fit in a lower built tank. Also, it might explain why the sides aren't sloped, the turret seems so small, why the tracks are laid out the way they are, and so on. Something we see as completely stupid might make a lot more sense if we can see why it was built a certain way.

For example, if you made the sides of the tanks sloped, it'd make it harder to fit sponsons onto it. It'd also throw in another problem in the fact of space inside the tank. You either keep the tank the same height it is, and then slope the armor out down to the tracks (which would effectively double the size of the tank, making it even easier to hit) or you keep it the same width, and slope the armor down to match it, which would make the tank appear tiny and extremely cramped. You could also try and find a balance in between, but you'd either be losing space inside the vehicle for ammo/crew/engine/etc, or you risk significantly enlarging the vehicle, which would make it harder to transport, as well as make it harder to use in an urban environment. And another thing would be that using sloped sides with the way the tracks are designed would be extremely difficult, since the tracks literally take up the whole side of the tank. You'd have maybe 2 feet of sloped armor before you reached the tracks, and unless you're going to try and angle out past the tracks, there isn't much you could do to mitigate that.

You'd basically have to completely redesign the vehicle in order to make even a couple of the suggestions people mentioned in this thread, and as we've already discussed, the AdMech aren't exactly keen on that sort of thing. Regardless of how "stupid" it is, this is just how the Imperium does things, and no matter how much we poke fun at it or hate it, I doubt its changing soon.

More on topic though, the Leman Russ to me seems like a fairly decent tank design, if only more for the "Jack of all trades, master of none" vibe that it has going on. Yeah, an Abrams or a t-90 might have a more sensible design to us with their specialized roles, but the Leman Russ literally has to be able to fight anything in the galaxy. One day you could be fighting tanks, the next fighting off a horde of space bugs, and the next trying to fight back the literal legions of hell. It may not be "The best" at any of those roles, but the fact it can fight all of these threats with minimal tweaks makes it more valuable to the IG than any specialist tank I'd imagine.

MrMoustaffa - Yes, they have: in FW IA 1. I think there's one of a Chimera in there too... Been a while since I've had a look though.

EDIT: Just checked; the cutaway is of a Vanquisher, possibly with a Mars Alpha hull, I can't tell...

riplikash wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I excluded super heavies due to rareity. When people see leman russes it is no big deal, if people see baneblades its the apocypse. Its because its not rare its the better tank then the super heavies.

I'm sorry, it just feels like you are trying to twist things to support your argument now. Now it is a better tank because it is more common? You must see you are in a circular logic loop now. Your original argument was it is common because it is the bast. Now you contend it is the best because it is common.

The AK-47 isn't the worlds best gun because it is the most common. Iron isn't a superior building material because it is more common. Conversly steel isn't a better building material than gold because it is more common. It is a better building material because it's better for that purpose.

The LR just has no claim on being 'the best tank in the galaxy'. It's good for it's purpose, and easy to produce, but there are certainly better tanks out there.

And again, apocalypse is a tabletop distinction and has nothing to do with rarity. Most battles in the Imperium are going to be significantly larger than anything ever reproduced in Apocolypse. It just doesn't make for a good miniature game.

While everyone says the Leman Russ is 'simple' nah it's still considerable complex compared to Ragnarok. which it's even more simpler.
I think it is the performance that judged its prolonged service in the Imperium. fairly adaptable (compact gasifier mounted directly to its diesel engine), sturdy, reliable and easy to maintain. the newer fluff said that Leman Russ has become more complex than what the early backstory says. but will you buy cheaply-made tanks that is later so expensive to maintain and difficult to operate?

i'd say that Leman Russ do have 'car style' steerings rather than tractor gears. the technology initially available to Tiger tank.

Lone Cat wrote:

ifStatement wrote:It's based on a real life tank.

The WW1 emhar mark 4...




...with a turret.

You'd think they might go with something a bit better than ww1 tech level in the 41st millennium, but like others have said you can't read into it too much. Even the likes of Jules Verne's science fiction falls apart under close scrutiny...and he actually tried.

while Rhomboid designs of Leman Russ is based on Brits Mk4
the actual design history was of that Leman Russ is modified from french Char B1 Bis which GW purchased a license much early on. modified to 'fit all kinda warfare'
the 'stocky' aesthetic means that it can traverse through a narrow alley. something bigger tanks like Baneblade can't.

Personally I DISLIKE Leman Russ design. the IA books cited that Leman Russ has coilspring suspension system. i believe it works with hydraulic control systems.
the new fluff says that Lenman Russ is more complex than the older ones. there's even more simpler tanks once used by Kriegsche. the Panzerkampfwagen Ragnarok.

http://homepage.mac.com/james.clay/iblog/B233824576/C1864165285/E1807570321/index.html hit the link to see closeups.

I see more similarities in the mark 4 than just the rhomboid shape to be honest. It's basically the entire design minus the turret.

Look! I've found this!



this is 'Female Mk4' with turret. the main gun might be either 37mm or 47mm cannon. surely made-up for Rise of Nations. but did the team really a fan of 40k?

The image is broken for me I can't see it.

same tank in the link you've said it's broken.


See? the turret itself is roughtly either Cromwell or Churchill.

Tibbsy wrote:MrMoustaffa - Yes, they have: in FW IA 1. I think there's one of a Chimera in there too... Been a while since I've had a look though.

EDIT: Just checked; the cutaway is of a Vanquisher, possibly with a Mars Alpha hull, I can't tell...

Yeah and 200+ mm diameter rounds. Remind me how they cram 40 of those into the hull again?

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:MrMoustaffa - Yes, they have: in FW IA 1. I think there's one of a Chimera in there too... Been a while since I've had a look though.

EDIT: Just checked; the cutaway is of a Vanquisher, possibly with a Mars Alpha hull, I can't tell...

Yeah and 200+ mm diameter rounds. Remind me how they cram 40 of those into the hull again?

The answer is the model isn't correctly proportioned.

an actual true scale LRBT would be quite abit longer and wider with a larger turret. The weapons would remain the same size and appear to shrink alongside the model.

BeRzErKeR wrote:[Actually, my argument about the Leman Russ is just a wee bit more complex. As it stands, the Leman Russ does a BUNCH of things pretty well; it strikes a compromise between maneuverability and durability which is weighted towards maneuverability. With the high tracks, it can probably traverse much steeper slopes than modern MBTs can; the design seems to indicate that it is amphibious, which would open up a lot of tactical options in usage, and because it's relatively narrow it can maneuver effectively in tighter spaces.

But the most important bit isn't actually tactical, it's logistical. Logistics are the real limiting factor for the Imperium; yes, they've got ludicrous amounts of resources, but they have to get all those resources to the battlefield after they've been turned into tanks and fuel and ammo, and the transport stage is where the crunch hits them. The Leman Russ is, essentially, a partial solution to the massive problem of conducting armored warfare across interstellar distances. If the Imperium altered the design of the Leman Russ to be a low-slung, slope-armored, purpose-built modern-style MBT, that would make it unable to traverse hills and trenches, remove its swimming ability, and sharply limit maneuverability in close quarters. That would mean that they'd need two or three more, different purpose-built vehicles - specialist AAVs, specialist trench-crossing vehicles, specialist high-altitude combat vehicles, etc - to fulfill the roles that the Leman Russ fulfills now.

More politics than logistics. One reason we see more high tech stuff in the Heresy era vs modern is that there was someone higher up on the pole to force the AdMech (and others) to actually give troops decent gear. Without the emperor or the Primarchs or the Sigilite around there is almost noone who can force the AdMech to go against what they want - that isn't to say the AdMech is in control, but that there is a balance of power and everyone is about evenly matched (even the Inquisition is limited by this.) Bureacracy is another factor, the way the Munitorum is handled and operates dictates a great deal of the logistics as well (which hedges both towards conservatism and pessimism.) again noone around to force them to do otherwise means they'll follow their own ideas, which creates problems as it filters down. again politics. If not for that they might actually have more AG vehicles (At least iwht the higher tier forces.)

That said, the lack of standardization is what forces (and contributes) to all the official and unofficial modifications to vehicle chassis. They're endlessly modifying or remodifying vheicles to create new ones, toc reate stopgaps, or whatever. Look at all the Macharius/Malcaodr variants, or the wya they stick titan weapons on baneblade hulls as Shadowsword stopgaps and so on. It's not just that they prefer 'lower tech' solutions to simplify their lgoistical and maintenance needs (or optimize for efficiency - again remember Leman Russes have something like 3x the operational range of an Abrams, despite being half the speed typically.) they also favor versatility. The hull that one day was a Vanquisher that got destroyed might be converted to mount two lascannons, or a battle cannon, or twin autocannons in another iteration. Or if they need it to fill another role.

There's also the Forge World Trojans which are a prime example of 'adaptability' of hulls.

Another factor at play is the same one that prevents the Imperium from standardizing troop training ot any degree (EG millions of worlds each with their own traditions and military doctrine) also dictates the sheer versatility of the Russ - each world is going to outfit or design their tanks to operate their own ways. The Krieg or Baran Siegemasters don't operate their battle tanks the way the Narmenian, Cadian, or Pardus tank regiments do, so they'll be equipped, armed, and operate differently. So you can have tanks that move faster and are much more mobile (and better at tank killing) than the ones other regiments might do. Whether they can maintain it that way is another story. (If they stay within the vicinity of their home sector/subsector I suspect its not a problem. If they send them to another segmentum logistics becomes a problem.) The same is true of most other IG equipment including lasguns really.

I would also note there's a Gav Thorpe short story that shows you can illegally modify a Russ to be much faster (I figure its like the souped-up engines for the Salamanders. Funny enough the old Chapter Approved vehicle design rules allowed for that sort of thing I think...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:MrMoustaffa - Yes, they have: in FW IA 1. I think there's one of a Chimera in there too... Been a while since I've had a look though.

EDIT: Just checked; the cutaway is of a Vanquisher, possibly with a Mars Alpha hull, I can't tell...

Yeah and 200+ mm diameter rounds. Remind me how they cram 40 of those into the hull again?

The answer is the model isn't correctly proportioned.

an actual true scale LRBT would be quite abit longer and wider with a larger turret. The weapons would remain the same size and appear to shrink alongside the model.

Yeah I know. Its even omre hialrious in that the artwork isn't even quite consistent with each other. I've scaled the barrels and such to different diameters (some of which as I said are big enough I could crawl inside the barrel.)

I just chalk it up to the veresatility thing. There probably are Russes with that huge of guns for some reason (Demolisher stopgap maybe, or maybe its meant to fire a really big shaped charge or some rocket assited ammo like the M551 Sheridan. The Barrel does look like some Leman Russ barrels, after all.... I think the Russians had a rocket propelled anti tank round fired from the gun as well.

The only problem i had with the leman russ is its high profile. Now in some cases this has annoyed me especially when you have pictures of leman russes hidden in ambush lile in spearhead. You cant hide a tank that high in ambush it doesnt work. Everything else about it i do like about it it reminds me of a mobile fortress.

Its the baneblade i do have a problem with for the fact it has to many guns to my likeing. If we went with hostory tanks designed like land dreadnoughts look good on paper but in battle are absolutely useless. Look at a T-28 or T-35 that the russians came up with. They looked good but they couldnt carry all that ammo

Of course when the landscape around you is full of huge pieces of terrain that easily dwarfs your vehicles then you will probably have plenty of cover for even the LRBT.

Hab spires and such will provide plenty of cover, especially if they have been damaged by a bombardment.

Thick forests will provide you cover from ground level easily enough. The air will be a vulnerability, but thats what the Imperial Navy is for. Achieve air superiority and your vertical visability isn't as important.



and again, Baneblades are victims of proportional error. Make them larger and keep the weapons the same size and you will have a more managable storage capacity.

and the Baneblades that have energy weapons will simply draw from the reactor and not have storage issues for that weapons ammo. And Baneblades would probably get resupplied quite frequently. Just drive to a secure landing zone, drop some ammo by Valk and get rolling again. It could possably be even as simple as opening a hatch on the top of the tank and have the Valk just drop the ammo right into the magazine, no getting out or anything.


I believe a true scale baneblade would be around 2 ft long and almost as wide.

Grey Templar wrote:I believe a true scale baneblade would be around 2 ft long and almost as wide.

Quick, correct that before someone quotes it. ...oh wait.

What?

Oh you actually meant 2ft? Dude that's almost this sort of scale... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 It takes a weeks planning to move.

Vehicle height is an advantage and a disadvantage because of line of sight. It makes you easier to spot by the enemy.. but they are also easier to spot. Also given that its been established in several novels (Honour Guard and Mercy Run short story from Planetkill) that auspex have detection ranges of 15-20 km on the ground (OVER the horizon, in other words) makes the ability to hide effectively more difficult (At least against other Imperial type targets.) Weapons which rely on line of sight (lascannon for example) can also be limited by this - cannon at least could indirect fire in theory.

You also cannot reduce your height or profile without making changes in other dimensions. Your tank becomes shorter.. it also becomes longer and wider, which means that from overhead its a MUCH bigger target. A bigger target is also easier to hit in other ways (fighters, orbital bombardment, etc.) If your enemy is capable of indirect firing and can damage you, he might also have an easier time hitting you from above (especially since overhead armor might be thinner than on the front or sides.)

The M1 Abrams can get away with much of this because it does not fight alone, and it often fights in terrain where the US has ground, air, and naval superiority and with a great deal of assets around to do detection fro them (satellites, scouts/spotters, recon vehicles, etc.) to compensate for any flaws in the tradeoffs it makes.

And as noted before, it has any number of tradeoffs. Again I was looking at the LR Demolisher thing from Inferno -


Interesting as well it mentions the Demolisher having 'passive night sight, Laser warning system, and laser range finder.' Demolisher cannon also has an automatic loader/ejection system. Engine is an 840 hp,V-12 (12 cylinder) air cooled multifuel engine that can run on Gasoline, Benzene, Kerosene, or 'other'

In this iteration it has an 250 km 'on road' range, and a 100 km 'off road' range. If we play that into the Defixio (which is off road) example you can get a 3,750 km range 'on road' It also mentions that with optional 100 litre tanks you get an extra 100 km range, which would imply a 1 km per litre fuel efficiency. An M1 Abrams by contrast carries some 1900 litres and has a range of 426 km, which means it expends 4.5 litres per km.

The Defixio Russ, btw, was a Exterminator run by (IIRC) the Salvar Chem Dogs.. so we're not exactly talking high end. It also shows how adaptable/modifiable the thing is (the Inferno demolisher is 68-70 tonnes loaded, incidentally.)

ifStatement wrote:Oh you actually meant 2ft? Dude that's almost this sort of scale... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 It takes a weeks planning to move.

Just compare my estimate to an actual Guardsmen. Its big, but not as big as that thing you just showed.

That thing also isn't potentially nuclear powered.

heh. I forgot about that. They have nuclear powered chimeras, so they could have some nuclear powered Russes. They can also stick MIUs, powered cannon (of some kind.. battle cannon at that) and some fairly sophisticated targeting on board.

Funny enough if you look through the IA1 stats for Leman Russ hull variants you get some that are remarkably fast. For example the Mars pattern hull used in the Destroyer tank Hunter is 52 tonnes (to the regular Russes' 60 tonnes) but is a 50 kph on road and 36 kph off road (to 35 kph and 21 kph). With a souped up engine you could get vastly different performance. (the Executioner plasma weapon was 18 kph off road in IA1, while in Honour guard it was 30 kph off road)

Same thing for Basilisks. In IA1 the Basiliks was 40 tons and pulled 35 kph on road and 21 kph off road, whilst in the Inferno entry for the Basilisk (open topped) it pulled 60 kph on road and 45 kph on road. It also had a multi-fuel engine that could run on "Gasoline, Kerosene, alcohol, charcoal, vegetative matter, other."

And of course there was the 70 kph Leman Russ from 2nd edition.

I havn't heard of nuclear powered Chimeras, although its possable.


Thats the beauty of the STC system. You can actually tell it what fuel sources you have avaliable and it will give you instructions for different engines depending on your needs.

Most non-super heavies will use Multi-fuel(Biofuels/synthetic fuels/alcohol...) or Promethium(Petroleum) while Super heavies will use Fusion reactors. Landraiders and Dreadnoughts use small scale fusion reactors not avaliable for anything else.

Since we are talking about STCs, what are they exactly? Are they like mini-factories, or just really sophisticated software?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Since we are talking about STCs, what are they exactly? Are they like mini-factories, or just really sophisticated software?

Ancient archaic blueprint/machines from the dark age of technology. The AdMech sees them as holy and is highest heresy to alter the designs.

Squidmanlolz wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Since we are talking about STCs, what are they exactly? Are they like mini-factories, or just really sophisticated software?

Ancient archaic blueprint/machines from the dark age of technology. The AdMech sees them as holy and is highest heresy to alter the designs.

Yes, I know that, but what do they look like? Do they come on a DvD, floppy disk, what?
And how are they used? How does one get it to construct whatever it is meant to construct?

A little bit of both.


The actual STC itself is just a computer holding every single bit of technology mankind has ever created, from battletanks to silverware to fusion generators. They were placed aboard human colony ships(when they were multi-generational crafts traveling at sub-light speeds) to give a new colony access to all the technology they could ever possably need.

You would tell it what you need and what resources you have and it would print out how to make something that would do what you need. You could say "I need a tractor, but it needs to be Nuclear powered because we don't have any Hydrocarbons for fuel" and the STC would print something out for you.

Many STCs were however hooked up to Nano-replicators which could produce the items you needed on the spot.


over time, the STCs were neglected/fell into disrepair because mankind essentially forgot how stuff worked(because they didn't need to know how, the STC just did everything for them)

Many STC computers had their memories corrupted so they have incomplete data or are stuck printing out whatever the last blueprint they were tasked to make.

In the modern time period, STC can mean both the actual computer and the blueprints it makes. The Ad Mech's holy grail would be to find an STC computer that is still completely functional. it would give back everything mankind has lost over the millenia.

Grey Templar wrote:A little bit of both.


The actual STC itself is just a computer holding every single bit of technology mankind has ever created, from battletanks to silverware to fusion generators. They were placed aboard human colony ships(when they were multi-generational crafts traveling at sub-light speeds) to give a new colony access to all the technology they could ever possably need.

You would tell it what you need and what resources you have and it would print out how to make something that would do what you need. You could say "I need a tractor, but it needs to be Nuclear powered because we don't have any Hydrocarbons for fuel" and the STC would print something out for you.

Many STCs were however hooked up to Nano-replicators which could produce the items you needed on the spot.


over time, the STCs were neglected/fell into disrepair because mankind essentially forgot how stuff worked(because they didn't need to know how, the STC just did everything for them)

Many STC computers had their memories corrupted so they have incomplete data or are stuck printing out whatever the last blueprint they were tasked to make.

In the modern time period, STC can mean both the actual computer and the blueprints it makes. The Ad Mech's holy grail would be to find an STC computer that is still completely functional. it would give back everything mankind has lost over the millenia.

Oh...so its like a very cool laptop crossed with a GECK, that could be glued to a 3d printer?

Exactly, and if they ever find one thats working evry single Xenos species is ed

Grey Templar wrote:Exactly, and if they ever find one thats working evry single Xenos species is ed

Yep, as it's been explained it's GW ace in the hole if the Emprah ever died to keep the IoM afloat.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Vehicle height is an advantage and a disadvantage because of line of sight. It makes you easier to spot by the enemy.. but they are also easier to spot. Also given that its been established in several novels (Honour Guard and Mercy Run short story from Planetkill) that auspex have detection ranges of 15-20 km on the ground (OVER the horizon, in other words) makes the ability to hide effectively more difficult (At least against other Imperial type targets.) Weapons which rely on line of sight (lascannon for example) can also be limited by this - cannon at least could indirect fire in theory.

You also cannot reduce your height or profile without making changes in other dimensions. Your tank becomes shorter.. it also becomes longer and wider, which means that from overhead its a MUCH bigger target. A bigger target is also easier to hit in other ways (fighters, orbital bombardment, etc.) If your enemy is capable of indirect firing and can damage you, he might also have an easier time hitting you from above (especially since overhead armor might be thinner than on the front or sides.)

The M1 Abrams can get away with much of this because it does not fight alone, and it often fights in terrain where the US has ground, air, and naval superiority and with a great deal of assets around to do detection fro them (satellites, scouts/spotters, recon vehicles, etc.) to compensate for any flaws in the tradeoffs it makes.

And as noted before, it has any number of tradeoffs. Again I was looking at the LR Demolisher thing from Inferno -


Interesting as well it mentions the Demolisher having 'passive night sight, Laser warning system, and laser range finder.' Demolisher cannon also has an automatic loader/ejection system. Engine is an 840 hp,V-12 (12 cylinder) air cooled multifuel engine that can run on Gasoline, Benzene, Kerosene, or 'other'

In this iteration it has an 250 km 'on road' range, and a 100 km 'off road' range. If we play that into the Defixio (which is off road) example you can get a 3,750 km range 'on road' It also mentions that with optional 100 litre tanks you get an extra 100 km range, which would imply a 1 km per litre fuel efficiency. An M1 Abrams by contrast carries some 1900 litres and has a range of 426 km, which means it expends 4.5 litres per km.

The Defixio Russ, btw, was a Exterminator run by (IIRC) the Salvar Chem Dogs.. so we're not exactly talking high end. It also shows how adaptable/modifiable the thing is (the Inferno demolisher is 68-70 tonnes loaded, incidentally.)

1. some other members say no Leman Russ or Demolishers uses autoloading systems since it's too complex.
2. the 'multifuel' engine is actually based on Rudolf Diesel's works. in fact. it is internal combustion engine linked with gassifier. ones that is small enough to fit in a bonnet, but still large enough to be functional.

Grey Templar wrote:Exactly, and if they ever find one thats working evry single Xenos species is ed

Except the Dark Eldar, the Eldar and the Necrons which will still have vastly superior technology.
In fact the entire STC = superawesome tech idea is somewhat flawed. The Imperium already posesses many advanced technologies from the Dark Age of Technology and while potent, they generaly lag somwhat behind those of the elder species ( that is, Necrons, Eldar and Dark Eldar ). Since ork tech is largely based on scavenging it is also unlikely that a more advanced technology will provide a lasting advantage against them.
Of course, with a fully intact STC one has to wonder if the Scions of Mars would still have a need for the Imperium, especialy since many of them don't even recognise the Carriongod as their Omnisiah...

I like the german method of dispensing with the turret and mounting a bigger gun in the hull (stugs) the imperium have the destroyer tank hunter the vindicator and the thunderer siege gun :-) wouldnt it be great to see more of these kind of assault gun platforms

KingDeath wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Exactly, and if they ever find one thats working evry single Xenos species is ed

Except the Dark Eldar, the Eldar and the Necrons which will still have vastly superior technology.
In fact the entire STC = superawesome tech idea is somewhat flawed. The Imperium already posesses many advanced technologies from the Dark Age of Technology and while potent, they generaly lag somwhat behind those of the elder species ( that is, Necrons, Eldar and Dark Eldar ). Since ork tech is largely based on scavenging it is also unlikely that a more advanced technology will provide a lasting advantage against them.
Of course, with a fully intact STC one has to wonder if the Scions of Mars would still have a need for the Imperium, especialy since many of them don't even recognise the Carriongod as their Omnisiah...

1. Orks being scavengers yes. but some other members cited that the Orks did also inherit their very own technology from the ancient ancestral (and now extinct) race they called Brainboyz (ork folklore says that brainboyz taught orks the technology of the 20th-21st centuries ... if they don't already have such knowhow, how do the Orks get cannons, shootas and sluggas... all weapons that uses smokeless powder as its propellant and chemistry to make explosives? how do the orks create percussion caps, ammunition cartridges and automatic firearms? how do the orks create and operate automotives that have rubber wheels and powered by combustion engine? ... if those orks fought early human settlers with pre-gunpowder weapons. ork problems will sure to be dealth with long before the Horus Heresy.
2. IS there any books saying that the Emperor himself was once worked for the creation of STC? the backstory only says that a man who's now known as The Emperor was once (or many times) scientists, engineers, inventers. or even a lowly crew to those men of sciences.
3. if that happens. The Admech will blackmail the Imperium even harder. they will sure to replace the not-so poppular Administratum civil servants, and the repressive Ecclessiarchy.
by then the early Imperial governments are in need of warp drives. remember that by then, everyone in the Terra almost forgot how to. only martians (which by then worshipped the Omnisshiah) have (and used) this technology by the time of Arkhan Land's expedition.

Well as long as it fits into the WH40k universe and looks gromdark, i doubt they'd care if the design was combat effective or not

KingDeath wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Exactly, and if they ever find one thats working evry single Xenos species is ed

Except the Dark Eldar, the Eldar and the Necrons which will still have vastly superior technology.
In fact the entire STC = superawesome tech idea is somewhat flawed. The Imperium already posesses many advanced technologies from the Dark Age of Technology and while potent, they generaly lag somwhat behind those of the elder species ( that is, Necrons, Eldar and Dark Eldar ). Since ork tech is largely based on scavenging it is also unlikely that a more advanced technology will provide a lasting advantage against them.
Of course, with a fully intact STC one has to wonder if the Scions of Mars would still have a need for the Imperium, especialy since many of them don't even recognise the Carriongod as their Omnisiah...

The vast majority of the Ad Mech does venerate the Emperor as the Omnissiah. And those that don't still recognise that they need the Imperium.

And Mankinds technology at its height did rival the Eldar, who were only superior in psychic abilities.

Only the Necrons havn't ever been rivaled.

I don't want to push this topic any further from the original track but. The technology the IoM uses is fauling apart because they still haven't figured out how to fix stuff or build new stuff. A functioning STC would be able to tech them how to build a machine to tech them how to build and or fix everything.

Space marines would rather have their techs paint a symbol on the side of a tank than weld a crack in the armour plates.... and they are well educated and actualy know stuff imagine the superstition and nonsense the rest of the IoM believe

That is a severly overexaggerated depiction.

They would weld the crack back together, or more likely drag the tank back and strip it for parts and melt down what wasn't repairable.

I pulled that example form one of the original inquisitor novels actualy, the squat is traveling around with some space marines and points out to a terminator that the armour is cracked on his land raider and offers to weld it and gets told to paint a rune of protection on it...

here they are republished by black libraries it has to be concidered GW canon?
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Home/Search-Results.html?filter_type=6&filter_Action=0&filter_name=SearchTerm&submit=GO&filter_value=draco

Considering there is a squat in it, that would make it no longer valid canon.

they're still selling it.

-snip-

Stug = Ork Lungbursta

There was also some epic 40k (?) campaign game way back in the day that was basically the eastern front with the map upside down.
The IG was the Wehrmacht and the marines where the Waffen SS and the Orks were the Russians as far as positions on the map went.

Grey Templar wrote:Considering there is a squat in it, that would make it no longer valid canon.

Wasn't it actually edited for the re-release? I remember hearing something like that.

edit: just read the extract, apparently not.

Grey Templar wrote:Considering there is a squat in it, that would make it no longer valid canon.

Normally I'd agree, but...

mullet_steve wrote:they're still selling it.

This. It's still a book on active sale and circulation, unlike just about anything else from it's era or earlier. That implies at least something...

It's Black Library, they're not adverse to money.

Also, there's no canon in Warhammer. There's also no Squats.

In that book they often mention that Squats are just abhumans. Abhumans obviously do exist still and a squatish breed of abhumans in 40K is actually more likely than not. For me, the presense of a short guy with a beard does not invalidate The Inquisition War.

mullet_steve wrote:I pulled that example form one of the original inquisitor novels actualy, the squat is traveling around with some space marines and points out to a terminator that the armour is cracked on his land raider and offers to weld it and gets told to paint a rune of protection on it...

here they are republished by black libraries it has to be concidered GW canon?
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Home/Search-Results.html?filter_type=6&filter_Action=0&filter_name=SearchTerm&submit=GO&filter_value=draco

You're actually thinking of the 'Warped Stars' short story by Ian Watson. Notable for a Space Marine Chapter who does not appear to use any bolters. It was included because it had Grimm the Squat in it, but I should note that in my copy of the 'Deathwing' Analogy they apparently changed it so he's a techpriest named Grill. :lol: Who befirends an Ogryn. I preferred it the original way, really.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

mullet_steve wrote:I pulled that example form one of the original inquisitor novels actualy, the squat is traveling around with some space marines and points out to a terminator that the armour is cracked on his land raider and offers to weld it and gets told to paint a rune of protection on it...

here they are republished by black libraries it has to be concidered GW canon?
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Home/Search-Results.html?filter_type=6&filter_Action=0&filter_name=SearchTerm&submit=GO&filter_value=draco

You're actually thinking of the 'Warped Stars' short story by Ian Watson. Notable for a Space Marine Chapter who does not appear to use any bolters. It was included because it had Grimm the Squat in it, but I should note that in my copy of the 'Deathwing' Analogy they apparently changed it so he's a techpriest named Grill. :lol: Who befirends an Ogryn. I preferred it the original way, really.

it was ages ago but I thought the reference came from those books....

Zakiriel wrote:Stug = Ork Lungbursta

Well, why mention StuG if original design for Stugs was soviet AT-1 (1935)?

And french designs of WWI is much more ORKISH anyway

Zakiriel wrote:Stug = Ork Lungbursta

There was also some epic 40k (?) campaign game way back in the day that was basically the eastern front with the map upside down.
The IG was the Wehrmacht and the marines where the Waffen SS and the Orks were the Russians as far as positions on the map went.

is it 2nd War of Armageddon? by then it was I.G. commanded by Commissar Yarrick (not sure if GW named them 'Steel Legion' yet? but in the 1st release of the 2nd war of Armageddon . no Steel Legions miniatures released YET! but Yarrick had already been released!) and Marines (led by Dante, the oldest living Space Marines) VS ORKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKS! led by Ghazkull Mc. Uruk Traka.





Got it! is this the GW campaigns you're referring to?

infinite_array wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Welcome to 40k. It is a science-fiction hobby where realism was left at the door.

*Points at*
-Elves in SPAAAAAAAAAACE
-Orcs in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE
-Daemons in SPAAAAAAAAAACE
-The fact that swords are still considered viable in combat
-Space Marines that can't move in their armor
-Every single thing basically forever in 40k

And we get hung up on the Russ?

And you forgot Mr Curze....space BATMAN!

The Leman Russ has the strongest armour known to man: plot armour.

Yes I think that was the one.

Yay stug pictures XD stugs, jagdpanzers, jagdpanthers and jagdtigers look awesome to me and i reckon they're a better alternate way to make anti tank vehicles (the russians did the same while the americans just mounted guns in open turrets onto sherman chassis). This is why i like imperial guard self propelled guns like the destroyer and the basilisk they look good to me :-)

Back on topic the Leman Russ is allright it's like the sherman with it's high sillourette (is that right?) combined with a british mk v tank from ww1 with its sponson and shape..........hang on a second i think i figured out what its based on. The tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusades. Thats a ww1 tank thats had a turret added to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yay stug pictures XD stugs, jagdpanzers, jagdpanthers and jagdtigers look awesome to me and i reckon they're a better alternate way to make anti tank vehicles (the russians did the same while the americans just mounted guns in open turrets onto sherman chassis). This is why i like imperial guard self propelled guns like the destroyer and the basilisk they look good to me :-)

Back on topic the Leman Russ is allright it's like the sherman with it's high sillourette (is that right?) combined with a british mk v tank from ww1 with its sponson and shape..........hang on a second i think i figured out what its based on. The tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusades. Thats a ww1 tank thats had a turret added to it.

GentlemanGuy wrote:Yay stug pictures XD stugs, jagdpanzers, jagdpanthers and jagdtigers look awesome to me and i reckon they're a better alternate way to make anti tank vehicles (the russians did the same while the americans just mounted guns in open turrets onto sherman chassis). This is why i like imperial guard self propelled guns like the destroyer and the basilisk they look good to me :-)

Back on topic the Leman Russ is allright it's like the sherman with it's high sillourette (is that right?) combined with a british mk v tank from ww1 with its sponson and shape..........hang on a second i think i figured out what its based on. The tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusades. Thats a ww1 tank thats had a turret added to it.

I get to post this





Would make a good LRBT table setpiece

I believe there were 2 kinds of MkIVs

Female tanks with a bunch of MGs and Males with some Artillery pieces in Sponsons.n I don't find any mentions of Turrets in the Male version.

The one with MGs is what is known about generally because thats what got air time. That and there were very few enemy tanks as the Germans only built like 20.

Grey Templar wrote:I believe there were 2 kinds of MkIVs

Female tanks with a bunch of MGs and Males with some Artillery pieces in Sponsons.n I don't find any mentions of Turrets in the Male version.

The one with MGs is what is known about generally because thats what got air time. That and there were very few enemy tanks as the Germans only built like 20.

place a 75mm turret on top of Female mark four and mount an MG in a bow. at the shotgun seat. and improve suspensions. and you've got Leman Russ.

Firstly, its a trench warfare tank and so it has to be tall with tracks in that shape to go over trenches, they could have made it a bit longer, instead of taller, but that would mean slower turning. Try traversing trenches with a modern day MBT, it doesn't work.

When a tank has to be tall there isn't much you can do to slope the sides, no modern tank does that as it would involve making the tank heavier.

The turret is that size because don't make a turret bigger than you have to, and that's what they did. It has an auto loader, why imperial battleships don't I don't know, but that's another question. Look at T-72, much smaller turrets than other tanks because they have an autoloader.

If you think those are skinny tracks look at al WWII tanks excluding German, KV and late T-34 and then the Leman Russ' look massive.

The stuff on the front, to have a hull mounted weapon the mini turret thing is needed, but you are right about the other stuff at the front.

Lastly, Its not an AFV, those are things like the Abrams 2 Armoured troop carriers, with a meh gun, or in 40k a chimera, whereas an IFV is a troop carrier, with a machine gun on top at best, like a rhino. A Leman Russ is an MBT, a main battle tank like the GLORIOUS challenger 2.

Locked for thread necromancy.