I'm just curious, why does the Imperial Guard name their main battle tank after that particular primarch?

The guard codex references them existing during the time of the heresy (and, presumably, under the same name), which seems kind of strange to me. I mean, did the guy actually invent that vehicle?

I think he may have had a hand in it..if so he was an idiot.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I think he may have had a hand in it..if so he was an idiot.

I actually lol'd.

The tank is perfect for the Space Wolves: Big, clunky, poorly designed, vaguely explained yet it manages to wreck face.

Never figured why.

honestly want to rename the tank to something else. but can't think of a good name.

The Regal Dorn Battle Tank? The Ferrus Manus Battle Tank?

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I think he may have had a hand in it..if so he was an idiot.

So what's wrong with the arguably the most successful tank in the galaxy? Backbone of the IG? I'm really interested to hear your opinion...

TheCustomLime wrote:
The Regal Dorn Battle Tank? The Ferrus Manus Battle Tank?

'The Guilliman'

with the the Giuliminator cannon...

 thenoobbomb wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:
The Regal Dorn Battle Tank? The Ferrus Manus Battle Tank?

'The Guilliman'

I could just imagine the "Girlyman Tank" puns.

'Roboutte mounted sponsons'

Maybe he discovered the STC for it?

Because the Gullyman doesn't sound very threatening now does it?

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I think he may have had a hand in it..if so he was an idiot.

So what's wrong with the arguably the most successful tank in the galaxy? Backbone of the IG? I'm really interested to hear your opinion...

You are joking right?

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I think he may have had a hand in it..if so he was an idiot.

So what's wrong with the arguably the most successful tank in the galaxy? Backbone of the IG? I'm really interested to hear your opinion...

You are joking right?

Nope. He's serious...and I agree with him. The Leman Russ has led the Imperial Guard to victory over the millennia; say what you want about the tank, but the results speak for themselves.

The russ is a bad, bad, bad design. Its to high, bad treads, poor field of fire, its a freak WWI style take with all the flaws, its a fraking MkI for gods sake. Its a rolling death trap, there are reasons no ones made takes like that since WWI and the Russ shows them all.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
The russ is a bad, bad, bad design. Its to high, bad trades, poor field of fire, its a freak WWI style take with all the flaws, its a fraking MkI for gods sake. Its a rolling death trap, there are reasons no ones made takes like that since WWI and the Russ shows them all.

This is 40k...who cares if the tank is gak IRL. The tank has the led the Guard to victory for millennia, that alone is proof enough of its worth.

And I suppose that the Imperium's other boxes with treads attached to them are superior designs? They're bullet magnets to a T. And they still manage to blast the crap out of those high tech junkers that the Tau and Eldar field.

No they suck as well, the game states do not reflect the design at all, the design is crap.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
And I suppose that the Imperium's other boxes with treads attached to them are superior designs? They're bullet magnets to a T. And they still manage to blast the crap out of those high tech junkers that the Tau and Eldar field.

40k logic, you gotta love it

TheCustomLime wrote:
The tank is perfect for the Space Wolves: Big, clunky, poorly designed, vaguely explained yet it manages to wreck face.

Because of this.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
No they suck as well, the game states do not reflect the design at all, the design is crap.

Let it go...real life considerations aside, you're not gonna win with badmouthing the Leman Russ and its variants. Not in 40k terms, anyway.

Its easier to field fifty billion boxes with guns than putting effort into making a superior MBT. And the Russ can still contend with skimmers.

That either says something about their reliability or about the quality of Xenos tech.

The Leman Russ is a WWI-tank sure. The Renault FT-117. It's actually the model of the first modern tank and the best tank of WWI, and look at the Spitfires I mean Lightnings, they going Mach 3? Yeah right. if you are gonna argue about how wrong things are in WH40k. you are in the wrong place.

Eh I was asked and I told you. The Russ is junk, most IOm tanks blow. The game stats simply do not reflect how sucktasitc they are, which amuses me as much as "what ya see is what yous get" seems to be invoked at the tables as what I see is an antiquated POS.

Its a bad design any way ya look at it.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Eh I was asked and I told you. The Russ is junk, most IOm tanks blow. The game stats simply do not reflect how sucktasitc they are, which amuses me as much as "what ya see is what yous get" seems to be invoked at the tables as what I see is an antiquated POS.

Its a bad design any way ya look at it.

It is actually. The Baneblade is probably the most realistic amongst them...buuut this is 40k, let's not forget that.

I am not forgetting that, but it blows even for 40k. Some folks like the WWI look, I find it past silly the best tank in the galaxy is something we cracked out in 1906 with a laser mounted on it and armor officially weaker then any take we have used since. (FW really needs to stop saying numbers when they have no clue what they mean) I mean the armors so weak we have rifles that can shoot though it....

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I am not forgetting that, but it blows even for 40k.

I resent that. Mass Effect aside, I kinda like my warships like big, flying Vaticans bristling with guns and torpedo tubes.

Some folks like the WWI look, I find it past silly the best tank in the galaxy is something we cracked out in 1906 with a laser mounted on it and armor officially weaker then any take we have used since. (FW really needs to stop saying numbers when they have no clue what they mean) I mean the armors so weak we have rifles that can shoot though it....

They probably have advanced metallurgy to cover for it...and that engine is supposed to run on anything that burns though promethium is the most efficient fuel.

No they give the armor in millimeters of Steel

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
No they give the armor in millimeters of Steel

...

Forge World or whoever gave those numbers ought to learn something...anyway, those numbers aside, the Leman Russ probably just hand-waves it all away with some sort of advanced technology despite its clunky appearance. I mean, in fluff that thing is so maneuverable it can practically tap-dance.

That was a pretty bad Forgeworld goof, honestly.

Plasteel I might buy.

Yeah I so agree about forgeworld and GW themselves...I mean freaking really.. millimeters of steel...sigh. As I said before fluff and design we see are not the same beast, not at all. I am talking about what we see..not what fluff says we have as honestly they simply can not be the same thing. Someone really has no clue about tanks, and I do not know much but even I know that much.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yeah I so agree about forgeworld and GW themselves...I mean freaking really.. millimeters of steel...sigh. As I said before fluff and design we see are not the same beast, not at all.

That's why its to just better ignore the latter and take the former at face value.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yeah I so agree about forgeworld and GW themselves...I mean freaking really.. millimeters of steel...sigh. As I said before fluff and design we see are not the same beast, not at all.

That's why its to just better ignore the latter and take the former at face value.

I do take it at face value as I have to deal with what I see...which is a bad tank design after WWI

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yeah I so agree about forgeworld and GW themselves...I mean freaking really.. millimeters of steel...sigh. As I said before fluff and design we see are not the same beast, not at all.

That's why its to just better ignore the latter and take the former at face value.

I do take it at face value as I have to deal with what I see...which is a bad tank design after WWI

Just take the effort to ignore the wrong data...trust me. I do that every time I flip through my BFG files, I mean, come on! 41st Millennium and we use manual labor to move macrocannon rounds and torpedoes into place?

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yeah I so agree about forgeworld and GW themselves...I mean freaking really.. millimeters of steel...sigh. As I said before fluff and design we see are not the same beast, not at all.

That's why its to just better ignore the latter and take the former at face value.

I do take it at face value as I have to deal with what I see...which is a bad tank design after WWI

Just take the effort to ignore the wrong data...trust me. I do that every time I flip through my BFG files, I mean, come on! 4ast Millennium and we use manual labor to move macrocannon rounds and torpedoes into place?

Because grim dark. Never mind that it would slow down the rate of fire.

What sort of building materials are common in the Imperium anyways, that could be used for Tank hulls? Ceramite is out, too rare.

But apart from Rockrete (Space Concrete basically) just what does the Imperium use?

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yeah I so agree about forgeworld and GW themselves...I mean freaking really.. millimeters of steel...sigh. As I said before fluff and design we see are not the same beast, not at all. I am talking about what we see..not what fluff says we have as honestly they simply can not be the same thing. Someone really has no clue about tanks, and I do not know much but even I know that much.

You are taking it too seriously, man..You are comparing plastic fantasy toy (which is 2/3s barrel - EPIC fail, ofc) with the WW2 real tanks...I'mean, I'm just sticking to the fluff and my imagination...

TheCustomLime wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yeah I so agree about forgeworld and GW themselves...I mean freaking really.. millimeters of steel...sigh. As I said before fluff and design we see are not the same beast, not at all.

That's why its to just better ignore the latter and take the former at face value.

I do take it at face value as I have to deal with what I see...which is a bad tank design after WWI

Just take the effort to ignore the wrong data...trust me. I do that every time I flip through my BFG files, I mean, come on! 4ast Millennium and we use manual labor to move macrocannon rounds and torpedoes into place?

Because grim dark. Never mind that it would slow down the rate of fire.

And why is it I've heard Adeptus Mechanicus ships have auto-loaders?

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
What sort of building materials are common in the Imperium anyways, that could be used for Tank hulls? Ceramite is out, too rare.

But apart from Rockrete (Space Concrete basically) just what does the Imperium use?

High-strength steel alloy? High-tensile-strength steel alloy? Titanium alloy with ceramic composite?

Not sure Arcsquad, but you do not make tank armor out of steel. The IoM has lots of options that are within their capability to make.

Ya know but..grim dark and all that.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Not sure Arcsquad, but you do not make tank armor out of steel. The IoM has lots of options that are within their capability to make.

Ya know but..grim dark and all that.

Sure, any pansy can get into a tank with meter thick, sloped armor and decent movement space... but it takes a REAL man to get into a high sided, boxy, cramped and hot death trap and kick the ass of alien races that are supposedly better than you.

And I think the fact that millimeter thick armor is just as effective as the supposed "Necron living metal" at resisting damage is hilarious.

TheCustomLime wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Not sure Arcsquad, but you do not make tank armor out of steel. The IoM has lots of options that are within their capability to make.

Ya know but..grim dark and all that.

Sure, any pansy can get into a tank with meter thick, sloped armor and decent movement space... but it takes a REAL man to get into a high sided, boxy, cramped and hot death trap and kick the ass of alien races that are supposedly better than you.

Well, can't argue with that. After all Guardsmen are supposed to have balls of steel

So, let's start with the technobabble...Btw, where are they keeping that "fat" ammo?

 DarthMarko wrote:
So, let's start with the technobabble...Btw, where are they keeping that "fat" ammo?

What 'fat' ammo?

TheCustomLime wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Not sure Arcsquad, but you do not make tank armor out of steel. The IoM has lots of options that are within their capability to make.

Ya know but..grim dark and all that.

Sure, any pansy can get into a tank with meter thick, sloped armor and decent movement space... but it takes a REAL man to get into a high sided, boxy, cramped and hot death trap and kick the ass of alien races that are supposedly better than you.

And I think the fact that millimeter thick armor is just as effective as the supposed "Necron living metal" at resisting damage is hilarious.

To me it shows once more GW has little control over its own line. The fluff contradicts itself many times and the design simply does not match the fluff at all. The FW stuff however matches the design, meaning its crap. You can indeed have effective looking tanks without going with a super modern look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
So, let's start with the technobabble...Btw, where are they keeping that "fat" ammo?

What 'fat' ammo?

The ammo really will not fit into the tank.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Not sure Arcsquad, but you do not make tank armor out of steel. The IoM has lots of options that are within their capability to make.

Ya know but..grim dark and all that.

Sure, any pansy can get into a tank with meter thick, sloped armor and decent movement space... but it takes a REAL man to get into a high sided, boxy, cramped and hot death trap and kick the ass of alien races that are supposedly better than you.

And I think the fact that millimeter thick armor is just as effective as the supposed "Necron living metal" at resisting damage is hilarious.

To me it shows once more GW has little control over its own line. The fluff contradicts itself many times and the design simply does not match the fluff at all. The FW stuff however matches the design, meaning its crap. You can indeed have effective looking tanks without going with a super modern look.

Unfortunately, the Guard's supposed to have a WWII/WWI/Vietnam-era feel, so there's nothing we can do other than bitch about it (pardon my plain language).

EDIT: Just imagine or hand wave the tank as bigger and more effective/efficient than it looks.

I am fine with the 70/80 feel as it would match the Guards, the WWI style does not. Take a look at something like the Swedish Strv 103. That thing screams sniper tanks in the look.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I am fine with the 70/80 feel as it would match the Guards, the WWI style does not. Take a look at something like the Swedish Strv 103. That thing screams sniper tanks in the look.

In a way it resembles the Destroyer Tank Hunter.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
So, let's start with the technobabble...Btw, where are they keeping that "fat" ammo?

What 'fat' ammo?

Based on the proportion of the pipe, how much "cannon balls " ,he can carry ?

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I am fine with the 70/80 feel as it would match the Guards, the WWI style does not. Take a look at something like the Swedish Strv 103. That thing screams sniper tanks in the look.

In a way it resembles the Destroyer Tank Hunter.

That is what i thought, except ya know effectively designed. Well no the 103 had issues that could be solved with 40k tech but not really with the tech of the day( mostly to do with the barrel stabilization). It is low and blockly and looks like something that not only can hide and snipe, but rugged that can be churned out by most IoM worlds.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I am fine with the 70/80 feel as it would match the Guards, the WWI style does not. Take a look at something like the Swedish Strv 103. That thing screams sniper tanks in the look.

In a way it resembles the Destroyer Tank Hunter.

That is what i thought, except ya know effectively designed. Well no the 103 had issues that could be solved with 40k tech but not really with the tech of the day( mostly to do with the barrel stabilization). It is low and blockly and looks like something that not only can hide and snipe, but rugged that can be churned out by most IoM worlds.

Which is in fact the whole concept behind the Destroyer. To strike fast and hard at enemy armor, then withdraw to another firing position, strike fast and hard again, and so on...Strangely enough, the Destroyer is a rare vehicle.

See I could get that if they were not all variants of the same few tanks. As long as they are just modified X it really makes little sense. If it had its own hull, I could see it being less common. Maybe it takes level x technology to make the enhanced stabilizers or some such and most worlds simply can't do it.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
See I could get that if they were not all variants of the same few tanks. As long as they are just modified X it really makes little sense. If it had its own hull, I could see it being less common. Maybe it takes level x technology to make the enhanced stabilizers or some such and most worlds simply can't do it.

And yet, during the Great Crusade the Imperial Army had Vanquishers, Conquerors, Baneblades, and Destroyers dime a dozen. Something's not right...

Well most of that can be explained. The IoM during the crusade as you yourself have said were tech using and if not innovating rediscoving. The current IoM, mainly do to the admech has a much lower level of tech. They have went from trying to understand the tech to rout learning. They simply do not for the most part understand it. If a factory wares out they have a less chance of fixing it.

Really it could be a case of only worlds A.C and D in this sector can make this here part. which means even if it makes thousands, some will be flagged for spars and only a few make it across who knows how much space to factories that know how to install and integrate it.

most destroyer tank hunters are rare because the imperium lacks the ability to produce new laser cannons. Similar effects can be gained by jamming a vanquisher cannon into a Russ chassis to make a viable self propelled gun.

Adeptus Mechanicus lazy heads...can't they do or remember anything without the Emperor telling them to?

You mean the Omnissiah, right?

Anyway, to answer the OP's question:

Way back in Rogue Trader, Leman Russ was an Imperial Guard general who had the tank named after him.
When 2nd Editiomn turned him into a Primarch, the background was retconned to Russ discovering the STC in the early days of the Great Crusade, and the Imperial Army naming it the Leman Russ tank in his honour.

Bran Dawri wrote:
You mean the Omnissiah, right?

Anyway, to answer the OP's question:

Way back in Rogue Trader, Leman Russ was an Imperial Guard general who had the tank named after him.
When 2nd Editiomn turned him into a Primarch, the background was retconned to Russ discovering the STC in the early days of the Great Crusade, and the Imperial Army naming it the Leman Russ tank in his honour.

This.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I think he may have had a hand in it..if so he was an idiot.

So what's wrong with the arguably the most successful tank in the galaxy? Backbone of the IG? I'm really interested to hear your opinion...

You are joking right?

Nope. He's serious...and I agree with him. The Leman Russ has led the Imperial Guard to victory over the millennia; say what you want about the tank, but the results speak for themselves.

I agree as well, when we compare all tanks in the galaxy nothing beats the Leman Russ. He is to the 40k like Sherman and T-34 were to WW2 - cheap, reliable, easy to maintain and easy to operate. And it's design even if he looks like he came out of WWI is actually quite reasonable for 40k, because Leman is made for defense and infantry support. Tanks like Abrams would handle a little better against Tau and Eldar tanks, but it would be useless against hordes like Tyranids and Orks because of it's design that was made for speed.

The fact that even Leman Russ can beat every race armor in battle and that can have 1.000.001 modification proves his worthiness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I find it past silly the best tank in the galaxy is something we cracked out in 1906 with a laser mounted on it and armor officially weaker then any take we have used since.

You know what is more bigger irony? The fact that this tank can go head to head with Tau Hammerhead and blow it to bits ( the Vanquisher version ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
What sort of building materials are common in the Imperium anyways, that could be used for Tank hulls? Ceramite is out, too rare.

But apart from Rockrete (Space Concrete basically) just what does the Imperium use?

This is a funny thing actually, officially most of Leman Russ tanks are made from steel and reinforced cast plasteel ( Plasteel is a type of advanced material used by the Imperium in the construction of many forms of armour. Heavy gauge plasteel is used in conjunction with ceramite to form the armour plating of Terminator Armour. ), but it is also mentioned that certain FW that are making Leman Russes sometimes are lacking on resources and are making it from any other resource they could find. So if some FW have a lot of Admantium and they are short on plasteel and steel they are making their Leman Russ tanks from Admantium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I am fine with the 70/80 feel as it would match the Guards, the WWI style does not.

What about Death Korps of Krieg? They are essentially WWI Western Front in space and everybody loves them.

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:

What about Death Korps of Krieg? They are essentially WWI Western Front in space and everybody loves them.

Nothing beats chucking thousands of tons of high explosive round the clock to grind the enemy to paste

I always partly put it up to the feel of the tank. Since WWII is somewhat guards thing.

It slightly looks like the sherman..Plus the name "lemen russ" has somewhat the same feel as many of the other WWII american tanks.

(sherman, stuart, chaffee, lee)

As for how it is built again i always got a sherman tank feel from it. How it looks and also the same idea behind it. Reliable as hell and easy to produce.

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:


I agree as well, when we compare all tanks in the galaxy nothing beats the Leman Russ. He is to the 40k like Sherman and T-34 were to WW2 - cheap, reliable, easy to maintain and easy to operate. And it's design even if he looks like he came out of WWI is actually quite reasonable for 40k, because Leman is made for defense and infantry support. Tanks like Abrams would handle a little better against Tau and Eldar tanks, but it would be useless against hordes like Tyranids and Orks because of it's design that was made for speed.

The fact that even Leman Russ can beat every race armor in battle and that can have 1.000.001 modification proves his worthiness.

Once more fluff is not what I am talking about. The Russ of fluff is nothing like the model. The sherman or t-34 are way better designed tanks then the Russ we see.

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:


You know what is more bigger irony? The fact that this tank can go head to head with Tau Hammerhead and blow it to bits ( the Vanquisher version ).

Something does, I wish someone would tell GW that tank they keep trying to push has no chance in hell of doing so however.


And no the Russ we see is not a god infantry support tank. Its a retread of WWI tanks, all abandoned WWI concepts really. You would not want to use that thing in combat, is just a really bad design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Etched In Pride wrote:
I always partly put it up to the feel of the tank. Since WWII is somewhat guards thing.

It slightly looks like the sherman..Plus the name "lemen russ" has somewhat the same feel as many of the other WWII american tanks.

(sherman, stuart, chaffee, lee)

As for how it is built again i always got a sherman tank feel from it. How it looks and also the same idea behind it. Reliable as hell and easy to produce.

Go look up the Mk I, that is what the russ is a Mk 1 with a top turret.

I still think that 'the Guilliman' sounds much more cooler.

The name dates back to when Leman Russ was a 41st Millenium Imperial Commander who started out in the Imperial Army and rose to command the Space Wolves chapter (when Marines were T3 and only got a 5+sv against lasguns), and not a Primarch of a Legion.


In fluff terms, something about the SW's and saving a forgeworld and/or STC's or something during the Heresy.

To be honest, the Leman Russ, just like the Primarch, served the Imperium for years, and theyre both purely 40k blast-your-face epic.

remember that a lot of the tanks, guns, and planes were designed when the traitors were still loyal.

Why not call it "The Fulgrim" or "The Conrad Kruze"


actually "The Lorgar" sounds like it would wreck face.

 Exergy wrote:
remember that a lot of the tanks, guns, and planes were designed when the traitors were still loyal.

Why not call it "The Fulgrim" or "The Conrad Kruze"


actually "The Lorgar" sounds like it would wreck face.

I think it would be ironic and hilarious if they named it after one of the traitor primarchs. Imagine the look on the Chaos Space Marines faces when they are getting blown apart by the likes of the "Angron Battle Tank".

 purplefood wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
You mean the Omnissiah, right?

Anyway, to answer the OP's question:

Way back in Rogue Trader, Leman Russ was an Imperial Guard general who had the tank named after him.
When 2nd Editiomn turned him into a Primarch, the background was retconned to Russ discovering the STC in the early days of the Great Crusade, and the Imperial Army naming it the Leman Russ tank in his honour.

This.

I'm amused that it took 2 pages to get the right answer.

 pretre wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
You mean the Omnissiah, right?

Anyway, to answer the OP's question:

Way back in Rogue Trader, Leman Russ was an Imperial Guard general who had the tank named after him.
When 2nd Editiomn turned him into a Primarch, the background was retconned to Russ discovering the STC in the early days of the Great Crusade, and the Imperial Army naming it the Leman Russ tank in his honour.

This.

I'm amused that it took 2 pages to get the right answer.

I was thinking the same thing. And that instead people were debating the practical functionality of a fictional tank...

 Just Dave wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
You mean the Omnissiah, right?

Anyway, to answer the OP's question:

Way back in Rogue Trader, Leman Russ was an Imperial Guard general who had the tank named after him.
When 2nd Editiomn turned him into a Primarch, the background was retconned to Russ discovering the STC in the early days of the Great Crusade, and the Imperial Army naming it the Leman Russ tank in his honour.

This.

I'm amused that it took 2 pages to get the right answer.

I was thinking the same thing. And that instead people were debating the practical functionality of a fictional tank...

Yes, that was a bit silly, wasn't it?
Somewhat like the debate, methinks.

Well it took two pages for someone to show up that knew the answer. Nothing silly about it.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Well it took two pages for someone to show up that knew the answer. Nothing silly about it.

Maybe all the people who didn't know what the feth they were talking about could have abstained or at least said 'Gee, good question...' Crazytalk.

You seem not to understand the concept of the internet man. You place a thread and ya know people show up to say stuff. Threads drift, mostly as when someone replies to a post someone else made.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
You seem not to understand the concept of the internet man. You place a thread and ya know people show up to say stuff. Threads drift, mostly as when someone replies to a post someone else made.

Actually, it looks like I understand the internet quite well. I wasn't calling anyone out, but here you are. The second post in the thread. Completely worthless and lead to the 2 page digression.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I think he may have had a hand in it..if so he was an idiot.

So yeah, thanks for 'adding value' to the thread.

No, I responding with I think he may have had a hand it its creation, which seems to have been correct. I also called him an idiot if so, which also seems to be correct.

 Exergy wrote:
actually "The Lorgar" sounds like it would wreck face.

Or cry into a rose-scented kerchief. "Daddy why?"

Leman Russ : a big robust brawling giant of man, who would fight anywhere and anytime, fairly simple, but resolute and steadfast, could be depended upon even in the worst of times..and likely fairly homely.

Leman Russ Tank : same as above just change man to tank.

Yes its ugly, ungainly , and offendeds everything in the book of AFV design, but hey its 40k..these guys pray to machine spirits before they turn a wrench..top gear they are not...

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:

Yes its ugly, ungainly , and offendeds everything in the book of AFV design, but hey its 40k..these guys pray to machine spirits before they turn a wrench..top gear they are not...

So?

I pray to my car every winter to start up from the first try and guess what - they work even better after I pray.
Coincidence?

Personally I think the Leman Russ design is perfect for DKoK since they have the whole trench warfare thing going. I can just imagine the Leman's rolling up and parking in an entrenchment for cover and using the high mounted cannon to fire over the cover. But that's just my thinking on it.

There's no denying the Russ design could use some refinement, but it's too central to 40k's aesthetic to change.

It wouldn't take much really; lower profile, no rivets (for the love of the Omnissiah, we stopped using rivets in armour in the 30s...well, unless you're Italy), and armoured tracks, and better gun calibre/length ratio and you'd have something far less offensive from an AFV design perspective, without changing the core aesthetic.

I'm actually curious to see if FW releases a new MBT for the Imperial Army in their Horus Heresy expansion, you know, something rare and experimental as to not break the fluff, but might look more like a functional tank.

Though if the sky falls and they advance the plot and the IoM starts breaking up, there might be more room for other, more practical looking tank designs.

In the mean time, I do enjoy the Russ, it's distinctive, and while obsolescent in design, and FW's stats on it are laughable, it does remain an inseparable part of 40k's lore, aesthetic and character.

 MajorStoffer wrote:


It wouldn't take much really; lower profile, no rivets (for the love of the Omnissiah, we stopped using rivets in armour in the 30s...well, unless you're Italy), and armoured tracks, and better gun calibre/length ratio and you'd have something far less offensive from an AFV design perspective, without changing the core aesthetic.

In other words a total redesigned

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:


It wouldn't take much really; lower profile, no rivets (for the love of the Omnissiah, we stopped using rivets in armour in the 30s...well, unless you're Italy), and armoured tracks, and better gun calibre/length ratio and you'd have something far less offensive from an AFV design perspective, without changing the core aesthetic.

In other words a total redesigned

Please, no. If we re-designed it, it might look like something from Star Wars. That would be sad, disappointing, and very irritating.

Not at all, you need to keep that rugged look, not ultra sci-fi sleek. Aiming for the cold war era style would fit well with the IG styling .

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Not at all, you need to keep that rugged look, not ultra sci-fi sleek. Aiming for the cold war era style would fit well with the IG styling .

I'm thinking something like the German Leopard II...I imagine the Eldar or the Tau would think something like "More clunky Human tanks?" Until the Leopards start firing HEAT while moving.

EDIT: High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT)

ooo just shorten the pipe and you've got a

 DarthMarko wrote:
ooo just shorten the pipe and you've got a

What the hell is that? You call that a tank?



THOSE ARE TANKS

I know LOL - but you lack ww2 analogy with those...

 DarthMarko wrote:
I know LOL - but you lack ww2 analogy with those...

Cold War analogy should be sufficient...Catachans are basically Vietnam-era US Army in SPAAACE!!!

lol I know, but those tanks can't do this

 DarthMarko wrote:
lol I know, but those tanks can't do this

Maybe not...but those tanks can take a hit from that and not get a scratch. Not to mention cause even more butthurt for Eldar and Tau than the Leman Russ already does. You know, sometimes I wonder what would happen if 40k Humans actually started using their heads...

O I agree with you completely...this pic was just to show IMHO most similar tank to Leman Russ...If someone has a better comparisiion, I'm really interested to see it....

 pretre wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
You mean the Omnissiah, right?

Anyway, to answer the OP's question:

Way back in Rogue Trader, Leman Russ was an Imperial Guard general who had the tank named after him.
When 2nd Editiomn turned him into a Primarch, the background was retconned to Russ discovering the STC in the early days of the Great Crusade, and the Imperial Army naming it the Leman Russ tank in his honour.

This.

I'm amused that it took 2 pages to get the right answer.

He was however never described as a member of the Imperial Army/Guard.

The RT rulebook stated he was appointed as an Adeptus Terra special agent then promoted to Imperial Commander Lucan two year later and being instrumental in Founding Astartes Unit 4 Space Wolves. (Imperial Commander = lesser Lord of Terra, either a planetary governor or a Space Marine Chapter Master, in Leman Russes case both)

This is from White Dwarf 365, june 2010, page 17.

This is what Dave Andrews had to say about the Leman Russ when they came out with the then new Leman Russ Battle Tank kit.

"What's interesting about the tanks of the 41st millenium", Dave says, leaning back in his chair and pointing to a nearby Leman Russ, "is that they're science fiction vehicles, but unlike any you'll see elsewhere. Take the Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th Century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutely no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays. Imperial Guard tanks don't even have proper, sloped armour, and that's quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed. The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging to the remnants of incredible technologies such as plasma cannons and las-weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations are embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel."

Seems to me, all the complaints you have about the tank are designed that way on purpose

Except the fluff disagrees. In fluff its not a backward, under powered and outclassed tank. Its the lord of war, better then any take fielded by powers who understand their own tech. . So more contradictions from GW,I am shocked. They try to make it both effect and backward and it more or less fails.

Did it occur to you that it is simply propaganda? something the Imperium would need in spades just to convince someone to get in that POS?

Every time I read fluff about the Leman Russ, it always sounds like they are being talked up to be more than they are by some faceless announcer, as if he must convince us of it's superiority in battle (like the Guard talks about EVERYTHING in their army) .

I think the fluff fits it fine.

Oh I agree the fluff is fine, the model simply does not match it at all.

Well, the Guard and the Leman Russ have won war after war over ten thousand years.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Well, the Guard and the Leman Russ have won war after war over ten thousand years.

which shows us the fluff is wrong or the model is. Its one or the other, I tend to think its the crap model ( which isn't in freaking scale anyhow)

I disagree, I think the tank perfectly matches the fluff, especially in light of the way the studio is designing them. They are supposed to look that way and work that way.

Remember, it isn't just one tank that is winning the wars and becoming the gods of war, its legions of tanks. thousands or maybe even millions of those things. That's what makes them a god of war. The fact that they can be made of pretty much anything, and can withstand so much punishment from the crew. Not that they are super survivable and super teched out.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Well, the Guard and the Leman Russ have won war after war over ten thousand years.

which shows us the fluff is wrong or the model is. Its one or the other, I tend to think its the crap model ( which isn't in freaking scale anyhow)

I agree. Its probably the models; the Imperium's war machines are far more effective than they look.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
I disagree, I think the tank perfectly matches the fluff, especially in light of the way the studio is designing them. They are supposed to look that way and work that way.

Remember, it isn't just one tank that is winning the wars and becoming the gods of war, its legions of tanks. thousands or maybe even millions of those things. That's what makes them a god of war. The fact that they can be made of pretty much anything, and can withstand so much punishment from the crew. Not that they are super survivable and super teched out.

That can't be right. Pretty sure Vanquisher-pattern/Conqueror-pattern Leman Russ tanks can rip apart Falcons and Hammerheads with ease.

Yep game stats they are the best tank or damned near it. The model does not t match because that thing could not win vs a WW2 Sherman much less a hammer head or a Falcon.

I'm pretty sure it depends on what rules set you are talking about. If it is 4th edition, I challenge you to rip apart a falcon with an Eradicator. In 5th, close to the same...but in 6th, you are probably right.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
I'm pretty sure it depends on what rules set you are talking about. If it is 4th edition, I challenge you to rip apart a falcon with an Eradicator. In 5th, close to the same...but in 6th, you are probably right.

I'll defer to your expertise on the TT; my knowledge is focused on BFG and general information. AFAIK, out of all tanks in the game, the Leman Russ and its variants aren't that special, but their overall performance is supposed to be the most balanced/reliable.

But that isn't how Leman Russ tanks win wars. How many stories have you read where the tanks of the IG survive much of the fighting? Not many of them do.

It's the fact that the guard can field so damn many of them that is making them be the better tank. Sure, one on one the Leman Russ would probably get kicked to the curb if it had a design like that, but imagine 10,000 of them in one battle...while you've got maybe 100. That's how the guard uses Leman Russ tanks. Not as good tanks in any respect, it's just a numbers game to them.

Throw enough tanks at the problem until it goes away.

It does not matter the rule set, in any the model should be dead meat vs any of them or all of them. Its a crap design that is past backward.The fluff and the mechanics simple do not match the idea of a "backward" tank. And the sweet gods knows that one is winning nothing...11 MM of steel riveted, wide open flat spaced armor......

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yep game stats they are the best tank or damned near it. The model does not t match because that thing could not win vs a WW2 Sherman much less a hammer head or a Falcon.

Actually its more of a British Mk. I fitted with a turret.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yep game stats they are the best tank or damned near it. The model does not t match because that thing could not win vs a WW2 Sherman much less a hammer head or a Falcon.

Actually its more of a British Mk. I fitted with a turret.

It is a Mk1 with a turret. I meant the Russ could not take a Sherman.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
It does not matter the rule set, in any the model should be dead meat vs any of them or all of them. Its a crap design that is past backward.The fluff and the mechanics simple do not match the idea of a "backward" tank. And the sweet gods knows that one is winning nothing...11 MM of steel riveted, wide open flat spaced armor......

Ignoring stupid fluff and tech-ignorant authors was the best decision I ever made.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Yep game stats they are the best tank or damned near it. The model does not t match because that thing could not win vs a WW2 Sherman much less a hammer head or a Falcon.

Actually its more of a British Mk. I fitted with a turret.

It is a Mk1 with a turret.

I knew it.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
[
Ignoring stupid fluff and tech-ignorant authors was the best decision I ever made.

Sadly in 40k that is all of them or near enough. GW has pretty terrible setting management. You have to pick your source and ignore all others.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
That can't be right. Pretty sure Vanquisher-pattern/Conqueror-pattern Leman Russ tanks can rip apart Falcons and Hammerheads with ease.

That's believable because the Vanquisher has a far longer barrel than the standard Leman Russ, allowing greater travel time for the shell in the barrel which means a greater velocity is reached before it leaves the muzzle, so it hits a lot harder than the LR's standard 'battle cannon'. It's akin to the difference between the Hotchkiss H35 & the Hotchkiss H35/39. The former had a short barrelled 37mm cannon intended for infantry support (firing off HE) whilst the latter had a longer barrelled 37mm cannon intended for taking on tanks.

The Leman Russ reminds me of the Medium MkII tank in service with the British army during the 20s/30s with its ridiculous height and slab-sided hull;


The advantages of the Leman Russ is that it isn't a hard tank to build, so armoured regiments can field loads of them and when they're track-to-track that slab-sided armour doesn't matter, the height also because they're throwing out so much firepower en masse that anyone sticking their head up is going to get it blown apart.

The model is not a truly scaled representation in the same way a Rhino isn't and also in the way Cadian plastics can be as big as plastic Space Marines - just the way they've been sculpted. The more accurately proportioned tanks are generally found on Forgeworld with ones like the beautiful Malcador.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
It is a Mk1 with a turret. I meant the Russ could not take a Sherman.

Actually it could. If you consider the weapons the Leman Russ faces & can quite happily take hits from and consider what its battle cannon can do, then the M4 Sherman with it's low velocity 75mm cannon, thin armour & also high profile would have great difficulty.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
It does not matter the rule set, in any the model should be dead meat vs any of them or all of them. Its a crap design that is past backward.The fluff and the mechanics simple do not match the idea of a "backward" tank. And the sweet gods knows that one is winning nothing...11 MM of steel riveted, wide open flat spaced armor......

Ignoring stupid fluff and tech-ignorant authors was the best decision I ever made.

Sadly in 40k that is all of them or near enough. GW has pretty terrible setting management. You have to pick your source and ignore all others.

Whatever doesn't make sense is ignored or put on the 'later' shelf until it makes sense.

EDIT: @Roadkill Zombie

What about the Conqueror? From what I know, the Vanquisher is getting rarer and rarer following the loss of the Forge World that produced them, and the Conqueror is supposed to be another high-performance Leman Russ variant.

Most tanks from the cold war would be simple as hell for most Imperium worlds to build. They may be backward but most who make tanks could crank them out pretty damned easy.

And no, really go look at the MkI, slap a turret on it.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Most tanks from the cold war would be simple as hell for most Imperium worlds to build. They may be backward but most who make tanks could crank them out pretty damned easy.

As I said before, Leopard II tanks (made and upgraded with 40k technology) would definitely equal more butthurt for the Imperium's enemies.

And no, really go look at the MkI, slap a turret on it.

I did and I did.

EDIT: Fluff-wise, the Leman Russ should handle the Sherman or any of our 'modern' tanks with ease. Model-wise? Whoever tries to make that design work IRL would probably end up a laughingstock.

heh was taking to the post above you Admiral, ya somehow got in while I posted.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the track shape, although it's far more pronounced upon the Malcador than the LR. Best to make sure you have the right image in your head when talking about the looks of something, hey? I blame my hangover.

Mk. 1



Looks like a Leman Russ without a turret. Come to think of it, that looks suspiciously like a Land Raider.

Russ



vs

MKI



There are better images of both but yeah its the same base chassis, GW just sucks at scale.

What do you know...they look alike (read sarcasm). GW...

Could also be a Mark VIII with a turret..if it was scale. This never existed was made by hollywood.

That thing is a hunk of junk. I'd bet even the crappy tanks used by the IJA during WWII would rip that thing apart.

Well it is why they were replaced. The Mark VIII was a intrawar tank not a WWI tank however.

Given the WWII feel of the Imperial Guard, the Tiger II or the Panther would be a better base for the Imperial Guard's MBTs.

I am messing around with making a guard army. I used Panzer i's for my Hellhounds. Prob go something like a bulldog for the russ. The scales are never right as ya know GW's scale is just bad.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I am messing around with making a guard army. I used Panzer i's for my Hellhounds. Prob go something like a bulldog for the russ. The scales are never right as ya know GW's scale is just bad.

The former is good, since both the Panzer I and the Hellhound are light tanks, but I disagree with the Bulldog. The Leman Russ is an MBT, while the Bulldog is a light tank. A medium or heavy tank would be a better choice IMHO.

I would also like that too, for every Guard Regiment to use it's unique 40k tank variants.

I would immediately start to collect Valhallans with their T-34's

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
I would also like that too, for every Guard Regiment to use it's unique 40k tank variants.

I would immediately start to collect Valhallans with their T-34's

Thankfully, there's no need to do the same for the Imperial Navy and Co. The standard models for Imperial and other warships are quite satisfactory. Except for the Tau; personally for some reason I find their warship designs somewhat unsatisfactory.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I am messing around with making a guard army. I used Panzer i's for my Hellhounds. Prob go something like a bulldog for the russ. The scales are never right as ya know GW's scale is just bad.

The former is good, since both the Panzer I and the Hellhound are light tanks, but I disagree with the Bulldog. The Leman Russ is an MBT, while the Bulldog is a light tank. A medium or heavy tank would be a better choice IMHO.

The bulldog is a medium tank. But mostly its scale isn't to bad for 40k, a heavy tank often are way to large. The bulldog is about 6 or 6.25 inches, which should scale pretty good on the table I think. something like most late WW2 heavy tanks will be larger, well out of scale with 40k, like 8 to 10 inches or so with more modern takes often between 11 and 15 inches.



Not my image but shows the scale.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

The bulldog is a medium tank.

Er no, it was a light tank - an upgunned replacement for the Chaffee, still had only half the armour of a Sherman.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

Not my image but shows the scale.

You mean it shows A scale. I'm guessing your talking about 1:35th, its a bit nonsensical to talk about what scale tanks are the right size when you don't give the scale.

a WW2 Leman russ, sans sponsons...

the Char B1 bis, I hate to say it was actually a bit sleeker than the Leman.

and it came in a Vanquisher model too..


a decent scale for alternate models is 1/48th but alot of the details end up being a bit on the small side, especially the main armament.

1/40th or 42nd would be almost perfect, but practically does not exist.

So much anger over a fictional tank.

@ SerQuintus, yes its 1/35th scale. I looked at 1/48th scale which are small, the 1/35 just look big next to the underscaled 40k vees but are right next to the figs.

And then the Tau discover an STC for video players that have Gundam Episodes stored. The end is near...

@topic
The reason why Leman Russ tanks have big cannons is that when the AdMechs (one of the 2 poisons killing the Imperium; the other being the Ecclesiarchy) showed Leman Russ what was stored in the STC, Leman Russ said "I AM INSULTED! The cannon is so small! You have to make the cannon big, like this!"

Proceeds to remove his Artificer Armour and shows his phallus.

A King Tiger to replace the Leman Russ. so you replace a tank that depends on sheer numbers to survive, with one of the worst AFVs in history, the King Tiger was more like a slightly faster basilisk. It could barely carry its own weight due to it using an engine designed for a medium tank. in 40k its like using the engine from a chimera to power a shadowsword. if anything the better tank designs to base the Leman Russ on would be the Soviet built T-55 series designed for all of the crappier members of the Warsaw Pact. Its a rugged design that also relied on numbers to gain superiority on the battlefield over NATO AFVs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
a WW2 Leman russ, sans sponsons...

the Char B1 bis, I hate to say it was actually a bit sleeker than the Leman.

and it came in a Vanquisher model too..


a decent scale for alternate models is 1/48th but alot of the details end up being a bit on the small side, especially the main armament.

1/40th or 42nd would be almost perfect, but practically does not exist.

also the the first picture is a French Char B1s, whereas the second picture is an American M6 heavy tank from the interwar period.

This would be a better replacement.

Really, GW's explanation for the model is quite weak, as it's supposed to be a Crusade-era rediscovery, from, you know, the peak of the Imperium's power and prowess.

Which is why, in rules and in fluff, it is a rolling death machine.

My group has discussed the Russ to some extent (almost every player at my FLGS has a Guard army, ranging from a few hundred points, to tens of thousands) and the model really is one of the most schizophrenic parts of the Imperial Guard.

Consider, by comparison, the Chimera, Basilisk, Manticore, Hellhound and so on. Save for the stupid rivets on everything, these vehicles and chassis are not impractical or particularly poorly designed. Not "optimized" per se, but science fiction rarely is. They've got low profiles, good slopes on the frontal armour, a clear focus on function, without impractically huge cannons.

In truth, the Chimera is not far removed from the BMP series, which have been a highly successful support vehicle line, and the other guard light vehicles use this well layed out chassis to serve other purposes, with a greater level of standardization than most modern militaries can claim.

Every other vehicle in the Guard armoury makes a fair degree of sense, and sans riveting, they're not really offensive.

Much like how FW redesigned the Lightning to match the navy aesthetic they've established, it would not take much effort to bring the Russ more in line with the rest of established, and more logical, guard aesthetic.

 sierra 1247 wrote:
A King Tiger to replace the Leman Russ. so you replace a tank that depends on sheer numbers to survive, with one of the worst AFVs in history, the King Tiger was more like a slightly faster basilisk. It could barely carry its own weight due to it using an engine designed for a medium tank. in 40k its like using the engine from a chimera to power a shadowsword. if anything the better tank designs to base the Leman Russ on would be the Soviet built T-55 series designed for all of the crappier members of the Warsaw Pact. Its a rugged design that also relied on numbers to gain superiority on the battlefield over NATO AFVs.
.

Well half the problem with the Tiger II was that the production plant was bombed to oblivion and back. If they had the plant intact, they could have fixed up the issues faster than they did. And when it was fixed up, the Tiger II was as fast as any other tank.

That being said, I would have chosen the Panther as a Russ replacement. Faster, more numerous, and still mounting a formidable gun.

 sierra 1247 wrote:
A King Tiger to replace the Leman Russ. so you replace a tank that depends on sheer numbers to survive, with one of the worst AFVs in history, the King Tiger was more like a slightly faster basilisk. It could barely carry its own weight due to it using an engine designed for a medium tank. in 40k its like using the engine from a chimera to power a shadowsword. if anything the better tank designs to base the Leman Russ on would be the Soviet built T-55 series designed for all of the crappier members of the Warsaw Pact. Its a rugged design that also relied on numbers to gain superiority on the battlefield over NATO AFVs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
a WW2 Leman russ, sans sponsons...

the Char B1 bis, I hate to say it was actually a bit sleeker than the Leman.

and it came in a Vanquisher model too..


a decent scale for alternate models is 1/48th but alot of the details end up being a bit on the small side, especially the main armament.

1/40th or 42nd would be almost perfect, but practically does not exist.

also the the first picture is a French Char B1s, whereas the second picture is an American M6 heavy tank from the interwar period.

I usually never post corrections but know it alls need to be called out..
this is a M6


the second pic was of a failed french heavy tank design the ARL-44

Arcsquad12 wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
A King Tiger to replace the Leman Russ. so you replace a tank that depends on sheer numbers to survive, with one of the worst AFVs in history, the King Tiger was more like a slightly faster basilisk. It could barely carry its own weight due to it using an engine designed for a medium tank. in 40k its like using the engine from a chimera to power a shadowsword. if anything the better tank designs to base the Leman Russ on would be the Soviet built T-55 series designed for all of the crappier members of the Warsaw Pact. Its a rugged design that also relied on numbers to gain superiority on the battlefield over NATO AFVs.
.

Well half the problem with the Tiger II was that the production plant was bombed to oblivion and back. If they had the plant intact, they could have fixed up the issues faster than they did. And when it was fixed up, the Tiger II was as fast as any other tank.

That being said, I would have chosen the Panther as a Russ replacement. Faster, more numerous, and still mounting a formidable gun.

That and also the huge indecisiveness of the Nazi high command, as there were far too many prototype super heavy tanks and such towards the end of the war to feasibly support, thus vital materials were wasted on the prototypes of AFVs that would never see any action (E.100 and Maus) if Germany had any chance of turning the war around in regards to tanks, they should have stuck with the panther and maybe ironed out the problems of the Tiger I, and also that was far too late in the war for it to make any impact in favour for the axis powers (thank you Allied Bomber Command)

Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
A King Tiger to replace the Leman Russ. so you replace a tank that depends on sheer numbers to survive, with one of the worst AFVs in history, the King Tiger was more like a slightly faster basilisk. It could barely carry its own weight due to it using an engine designed for a medium tank. in 40k its like using the engine from a chimera to power a shadowsword. if anything the better tank designs to base the Leman Russ on would be the Soviet built T-55 series designed for all of the crappier members of the Warsaw Pact. Its a rugged design that also relied on numbers to gain superiority on the battlefield over NATO AFVs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
a WW2 Leman russ, sans sponsons...

the Char B1 bis, I hate to say it was actually a bit sleeker than the Leman.

and it came in a Vanquisher model too..


a decent scale for alternate models is 1/48th but alot of the details end up being a bit on the small side, especially the main armament.

1/40th or 42nd would be almost perfect, but practically does not exist.

also the the first picture is a French Char B1s, whereas the second picture is an American M6 heavy tank from the interwar period.

I usually never post corrections but know it alls need to be called out..
this is a M6


the second pic was of a failed french heavy tank design the ARL-44

My mistake there thanks for the correction, the arour plating around the tracks just made me think of the M6.

no problem, itsrefreshing to find someone that admits to a mistake, no harm no foul

and my personal opinion is they should have stuck with the Tiger I so much cool stuff in that design, but my opinion of course.

My opinion is : The Imperium is so large I think the Leman Russ is the most seen tank around the galaxy but there must be a lot of design around the Imperium. From Tiger look a like to T-34 look a like thats why my next IG army wont have any of GW models for tanks but I will use the bits to make them more 40K like. BTW lots of ideas down here for alternatives tank design ! I always tought about the Renault FT-17 but Its hard to find !

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
no problem, itsrefreshing to find someone that admits to a mistake, no harm no foul

and my personal opinion is they should have stuck with the Tiger I so much cool stuff in that design, but my opinion of course.

cheers, and the turrets on the Tiger I was badass although the tank destroyer variant of the Tiger I was just awful. Hetzer all the way .

 sierra 1247 wrote:

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
no problem, itsrefreshing to find someone that admits to a mistake, no harm no foul

and my personal opinion is they should have stuck with the Tiger I so much cool stuff in that design, but my opinion of course.

cheers, and the turrets on the Tiger I was badass although the tank destroyer variant of the Tiger I was just awful. Hetzer all the way .

You dont like the Jadgtiger ? This big useless tank hunter design ?

you could always try the Landkreuzer p. 1500 Monster. When Nazi Germany decides to build a Shadowsword.

Jagdpanther was the sexiest of the ww2 tank destroyers, Hetzer was its cute little sister, jadgtiger was the fat stepsister they used to pull a plow


But back to the Leman Russ tank..I have a distinct suspicion its original use was as some form of agri-tractor, and due to the wonderful inovations and needs of the human race, somebody at some point stuck a turret and guns on it..and it soldiered on for the next thousands of years.

Now its heresy to suggest such an grand defender of the IoM was a lowly plow puller or hauler of hay, its a Tank damnit!

There have been some good ones here. Models are not much higher and in some cases much cheaper then GW Models. I have seen the tiger branded about a bit. The bitch is scale, which you more or less need to eyeball. Some times 1/35 works best, others 1/48th. From what I can ell the best scale is simply to place a mini next to it as we all know how off scale" the vee's GW put out are.

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
Jagdpanther was the sexiest of the ww2 tank destroyers, Hetzer was its cute little sister, jadgtiger was the fat stepsister they used to pull a plow


But back to the Leman Russ tank..I have a distinct suspicion its original use was as some form of agri-tractor, and due to the wonderful inovations and needs of the human race, somebody at some point stuck a turret and guns on it..and it soldiered on for the next thousands of years.

Now its heresy to suggest such an grand defender of the IoM was a lowly plow puller or hauler of hay, its a Tank damnit!

You are so right ! 88mm Pak watch out shermans !

you can use parts from some 1/35th scale tanks, but any medium tanks of the ww2 era forward are going to be alot larger than the LRMBT, and likely border on the size of a landraider (not that, thats a bad thing)

and 1/48th scale the hull and tracks are pretty spot on, I have a 1/48th scale tiger I and it almost exacly the same size hull wise, as a LRMBT, but its gun , and hatches are way to small to be in keeping with the 40k asthetic.

So barring some 1/40th scale models, scratch builing is about the best solution, or even rebuilding 40k models into something more pleasing to the eye (I may try my hand at that sometime soon).

I built a Aliens APC (from the movie ) from scratch (just plastic card and bits) and made sure it was to scale with GW minis, so indulge your creative side and build your own dream Leman Russ tank1

I have started a thread over in the paint section for folks that would like to share what they have used as replacements.

@Soo'fah'cha, Yeah they are all bigger then the Russ, which is not a bad thing as the Russ is well off scale..its freaking tiny. I picked the walker up on a whim for around 8 bucks. I was gonna just build it as a tank but have been thinking I could use some bitz and 40k it well enough. The scale is large for the Russ, but is scaled nicely with the minis.

It could be worse for the leman russ though. it could have been based off the german A7v tank

IIRC from a White Dwarf article, in the Index Astartes timeline when Russ and the Lion were rushing back to the Siege of Terra, Russ kept stopping in various systems to clean house/pee on fire hydrants/whatever. One of those systems was a Forge World that produced tanks for the Imperial Guard. They named the tanks after him as a tribute.

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
a WW2 Leman russ, sans sponsons...

the Char B1 bis, I hate to say it was actually a bit sleeker than the Leman.

Personally I'd have put the Char B1 BIS down as being the inspiration for the Malcador tank, along with some elements of Mk. V male tanks and other tanks. The hull mounted howitzer, whilst not something only the French Char had, was one of the most commonly recognised features of the tank and as a number of the Malcadors variations have a hull mounted Demolisher, it seems the Char might be the obvious influence. Also the longer hull fits more with the Malcador than the Leman Russ.

 sierra 1247 wrote:
That and also the huge indecisiveness of the Nazi high command, as there were far too many prototype super heavy tanks and such towards the end of the war to feasibly support, thus vital materials were wasted on the prototypes of AFVs that would never see any action (E.100 and Maus) if Germany had any chance of turning the war around in regards to tanks, they should have stuck with the panther and maybe ironed out the problems of the Tiger I.

They wasted resources on those heavy vehicles to begin with. The Panzer IV with the longer gun was almost as effective as the two more famous tanks, more reliable and much cheaper to build. Porsche was reportedly furious that High Command kept ordering the temperamental Panthers and Tigers when he could roll out two or four reliable Panzer IV tanks in place of one with the same resources.

And that's what the Leman Russ should be - something reliable that you can build an endless number of instead of trying to build something better that requires rare materials and precious resources. The crew supply is endless too so it doesn't matter if you sacrifice a few LR and crews to take down a more powerful machine.

Spetulhu wrote:
The crew supply is endless too so it doesn't matter if you sacrifice a few LR and crews to take down a more powerful machine.

see there is the issue, the Russ is not weak. It looks weak as hell and a waste of metal, but game wise and fluff wise is the tank to beat. It is not a stop gap cheap made , poorly designed tank we see.

Spetulhu wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
That and also the huge indecisiveness of the Nazi high command, as there were far too many prototype super heavy tanks and such towards the end of the war to feasibly support, thus vital materials were wasted on the prototypes of AFVs that would never see any action (E.100 and Maus) if Germany had any chance of turning the war around in regards to tanks, they should have stuck with the panther and maybe ironed out the problems of the Tiger I.

They wasted resources on those heavy vehicles to begin with. The Panzer IV with the longer gun was almost as effective as the two more famous tanks, more reliable and much cheaper to build. Porsche was reportedly furious that High Command kept ordering the temperamental Panthers and Tigers when he could roll out two or four reliable Panzer IV tanks in place of one with the same resources.

And that's what the Leman Russ should be - something reliable that you can build an endless number of instead of trying to build something better that requires rare materials and precious resources. The crew supply is endless too so it doesn't matter if you sacrifice a few LR and crews to take down a more powerful machine.

in that respect the Panzer IV was the tank to beat, until T-34/76 came along in huge numbers. and then its older brother T-34/85. Panthers were created for the elite Panzer Divisions like the Grossdeustchland so that they had powerful AFVs that they could deploy in similar numbers to the T-34/76 and still maintain superiority. Except that all went to hell at Kirsk as the Panzer divisions got their asses handed to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
The crew supply is endless too so it doesn't matter if you sacrifice a few LR and crews to take down a more powerful machine.

see there is the issue, the Russ is not weak. It looks weak as hell and a waste of metal, but game wise and fluff wise is the tank to beat. It is not a stop gap cheap made , poorly designed tank we see.

So basically we want an updated, more realistic tank design for the Leman Russ, without the fat cannon. Basically a predator with a bigger autocannon.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
The crew supply is endless too so it doesn't matter if you sacrifice a few LR and crews to take down a more powerful machine.

see there is the issue, the Russ is not weak. It looks weak as hell and a waste of metal, but game wise and fluff wise is the tank to beat. It is not a stop gap cheap made , poorly designed tank we see.

You do realize that in the grim darkeness of the future it doesn't need to make sense or be realistic. I mean the DE fly around with armor that is a bigger risk to themselves then to their opponents, ork tech is too ramshackle to be nearly as good as its rules indicate, chaos stuff is bizarre and their own weapons should eat them as often as not, people run around with chansaws and swords on a battle field where the average rifle has the range of a supersoaker.

Every army has a style that is independent of the rules. If you can't get over that why are you playing? No one forces you to pick IG or SM. Why don't you field Tau, Eldar or Necron?

The average lasgun has an effective range of 120 meters actually, going by Dark Heresy.

You know, I tried to find something worthwhile to say about this, but I can't. Yes, the tank is backwards. Yes, realistically, the stats would have it dead so fast, you'd miss it with a blink of the eye. Yes, you can have more "realistic" tanks, thats why people proxy tanks. In fact, I think I recall someone doing a design blog where they were converting StugIIIs for guard tanks. Now, on the far end of the spectrum, why don't we just go for broke and proxy a Ratte as a Leman Russ. It's only about 4 stories tall, armored from top to bottom, and uses naval guns. Seems to fit the Leman Russ image, no? In short, let's not argue about how it looks like tanks from a century ago. It's been stated that they look like that for a reason, so there really is no reason to complain.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The average lasgun has an effective range of 120 meters actually, going by Dark Heresy.

For a recoil-less laser weapon, that's about as pathetic as a super-soaker, especially when you consider how fast a Space Marine or seething mutant monstrosity could traverse 120 meters (for reference, the current fastest man alive ran 100 meters in 9.58 seconds; a Space Marine could probably do it closer to 5).

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The average lasgun has an effective range of 120 meters actually, going by Dark Heresy.

That is rather pathetic... AK-47 and M-16 have much larger effective range ( 350 metres and 550 meters ).
So the GW actually said that laser beam have less effective range then flying bullet? That is stupid even by their standards... in reality Lasgun range would be well over 500 meters, if not higher.

Durandal wrote:


Every army has a style that is independent of the rules. If you can't get over that why are you playing? No one forces you to pick IG or SM. Why don't you field Tau, Eldar or Necron?

I happen to like the IG, the tanks simply do not fit the IG styling, other then a single unit. The models for the IG tanks also do not fit the game stats or the setting fluff.

With regards to the lasguns range, think not of it as it being the lasguns absolute range & that when it hits 120m it just disappears, think of it as its base range at which the beam does not dissipate/lose any of its power. With a ballistic firearm the bullet will fly at a flat trajectory from the muzzle for a distance depending upon it's mass, the energy that's propelled it from the barrel & the length of the barrel/time to accelerate without anything external affecting it (wind, barometric pressure etc etc). As soon as the mass of the bullet begins to exert itself over the other factors then it will start to drop, which is why firearms have adjustable sights to account for range.

For a lasgun, let's say either the Mars or Necromunda patterns, I'd suggest that at 120m the beam is at it's strongest, when it hits the hardest. After that the power behind the beam starts to dissipate. How fast this happens would depend on the lasgun & its power pack - the Lucius no98 used by the Death Korp fires at a higher power setting and is noted as hitting harder than other lasguns - I'd suggest it has a far longer 'base range' before the power dissipates, whereas a lasgun like the Triplex has adjustable power settings so at longer ranges you can set it to the higher ranges and still hit hard whilst when the target is closer you can lower the power and still have the same effect.

Furthermore I wouldn't put faith utterly in the FFG stats for weapons. It's a game system, remember, and the weapon stats are based around what could be considered to be 'balanced'. With all the many differing marks of lasgun out there in the 41st milennium, I'm sure their ranges will vary as greatly as the number of designs.

Sparks_Havelock wrote:Furthermore I wouldn't put faith utterly in the FFG stats for weapons. It's a game system, remember, and the weapon stats are based around what could be considered to be 'balanced'.

And even more, they are ultimately just one of many opinions on the subject. And on top of that, an opinion that changes depending on which one of FFG's 40k RPGs you are looking at. This is 40k, remember, so there is no such thing as the one accurate source that has it right. Take the aforementioned Triplex lasgun, for example. In the IG Codex it is presented as being special because you can change its power output. In the newest version of Only War, this is a feature that every lasgun and laspistol has. And why? Because the players lobbied for it on the forum.

But also consider that just like with the Tabletop, "maximum range" must not mean that the shot disappears into nothingness. It just means you won't hit anything with an attack, don't bother rolling.
At least this is how I rationalise boltguns and bolt pistols having different ranges in spite of them firing the very same rocket-propelled ammunition - the boltgun simply allows for more precise aim.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
You know, I tried to find something worthwhile to say about this, but I can't. Yes, the tank is backwards. Yes, realistically, the stats would have it dead so fast, you'd miss it with a blink of the eye. Yes, you can have more "realistic" tanks, thats why people proxy tanks. In fact, I think I recall someone doing a design blog where they were converting StugIIIs for guard tanks. Now, on the far end of the spectrum, why don't we just go for broke and proxy a Ratte as a Leman Russ. It's only about 4 stories tall, armored from top to bottom, and uses naval guns. Seems to fit the Leman Russ image, no? In short, let's not argue about how it looks like tanks from a century ago. It's been stated that they look like that for a reason, so there really is no reason to complain.

Come now, the Ratte would have worked if Captain America hadn't destroyed the production facilities and stolen the Tesseract of Odin from Red Skull.

[img]

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Well, the Guard and the Leman Russ have won war after war over ten thousand years.

which shows us the fluff is wrong or the model is. Its one or the other, I tend to think its the crap model ( which isn't in freaking scale anyhow)

Well if your after a better looking model I did find this pic a while back. Yeah its a chaos predator with a different turret and Leman Russ sponsons, but it give it a lower profile and take away the chaos stuff IMHO you have one cool looking tank. Also as for the name I like the name as it is.

That is not much an improvement as the body styling is the main issue. The name I do not care about one way or the other, but yeah the tank blows.

It is a nice pic though, better then the standard Russ but just not my thing.

They're fat tanks. That's just something you're going to have to deal with. Fat, tall tanks that would be wrecked in any other setting. They are boxes with treads strapped to them. METAL BAWKSES.

I really do not have to deal with it, no.

Then we can keep arguing over a fictional tank in a universe that shouldn't be taken as seriously as it is for the next forty thousand years.

Or ya know..do like a great many people do and simply replace a model that does not fit the fluff. Well Ok it does fit the crap FW fluff which then does not fit the rest of the GW fluff (shock there)or the game stats.

Or we could just have fun with a silly looking tank that doesn't exist.

Leman Russ have tall flat sides.

This offers good protection from anti-tank weapons.

How, you ask?

Because they are fielded in such numbers over such a front that, if one were to be in a position to get a shot on that side armour, one has exposed oneself to thirty or forty other Leman Russ tanks. A large, tall, flat side is only vulnerable to shots from the side. No one is getting to the side of a tank formation that jams ~500 tanks into a two kilometer front.

The Flat sides that are a grant total of 11 MM of riveted steel you mean. No even in groups of 30 or better will the tank we see match the fluff, the model image blows in any and every way you look at it.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
The Flat sides that are a grant total of 11 MM of riveted steel you mean. No even in groups of 30 or better will the tank we see match the fluff, the model image blows in any and every way you look at it.

Groups of 30 are tiny, tiny groups of Leman Russ. Try 300 or more, in any given locality. You've got a 5km battle front? 500 Leman Russ should about cover it.

Sure, they could be better designed, but the way you're talking they'd blow up the second they roll off the production line. Given the Imperiums penchant for mass deployment and quantity over quality, the things that stand out as critical design flaws to us, with our modern eyes, are only minor issues to them.

Outside of mass crusades I can't think of any BL book I have read including the first 5 HH books that have groups that large in use. #0-40 looks to be a "regiment" I'll double check my IG codex however.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
The Flat sides that are a grant total of 11 MM of riveted steel you mean. No even in groups of 30 or better will the tank we see match the fluff, the model image blows in any and every way you look at it.

Boy, those flat sides will give you AV 13 and no less! You will LOVE this flat ides! You will WORSHIP those flat sides! You will pray those flat sides remain flat! That paper thin steel gives you the same protection as the front of an advanced astartes MBT and you will ADORE that! Leman Russ tanks don't need to be in groups of 30, boy, because Predators don't need to be in groups of 30 to survive front attacks! Boy, dem flat sides is better than anything most armies can field!

Yeah. I meant that entirely in jest, it is a really poor design choice in a world of proliferated AT weapons. My guess is that Imperial Guardsmen only get plot armor in their heavy support choices.

Yeah its plot armor for sure. I know how good the Russ is game wise and in fluff. I am simply saying what most folks here already know, that model is not the russ in the game stats or in lore.

The fact that tanks are used at all in the 41st millenium is the bigger paradox here. For all the technology that goes into a modern 20th Century MBT an illiterate peasant can still blow it to hell with a US$25 launcher or a roadside bomb he put together using kitchen chemicals.

Then again, this is a universe where cyclonic torpedoes exist yet people still felt the need to invent a warship that can destroy planets using a different method.

 Engine of War wrote:
Never figured why.

honestly want to rename the tank to something else. but can't think of a good name.

1. Or maybe GW goons are dog fans and not a fans of cats .. mew!
Leman Russ the Primarch and Lion el Jonson are rivals. and they did a duel. referring to the rivalry of canis (Wolf) and felis (Lion) families in nature.
Back in the days of The Great Crusade. During the invasion of a warlord stronghold, Space wolves led by Russ favors the frontal assault head on using the brute force, Dark Angels, under the leadership of Lion el Jonson. prefer a sneak attack of a feline being (meow). bypassed the strongpoints and easily slip through the tough defense into the warlord's HQ and neutralized the enemy command.. yep i'm talkin' about bloodfeud.

2. Or maybe a pet name that is a pun to real life William T. Sherman

Fluffwise the Russ is more akin to the T-34, even though its ingame stats make it more of a 40k IS-2. Its not a brilliant design, its outclassed by other tanks out there but its tough, runs off the smell of an oily rag and can by operated by anyone from the highly trained crack armor regiments to near ogryns who have trouble with the complexities of muskets.

 Kaldor wrote:
Leman Russ have tall flat sides.

This offers good protection from anti-tank weapons.

How, you ask?

Because they are fielded in such numbers over such a front that, if one were to be in a position to get a shot on that side armour, one has exposed oneself to thirty or forty other Leman Russ tanks. A large, tall, flat side is only vulnerable to shots from the side. No one is getting to the side of a tank formation that jams ~500 tanks into a two kilometer front.

Plus, those tanks often have side sponsons and the commander has a copula mounted heavy machinegun or a storm bolter, the Russ can defend itself up close, and as you said, it dosn't often travel alone. if it doesn't have a handful to thousnonds of its fellow tanks, it'll have over ten times as many guard to guard its flanks and rear

I love the look of the Russ tanks, it embodies the imperium so well, its stupid, ugly and bound by half-remembered tradition and superstition, but Throne on Earth help you if you get in it's gunsights because its got a whole load of diddly.

and cries of "it be sucks compared to a real world tank of (insert period here)" just make me laugh, this is the same universe where sentient fungus drive tanks made of rusted scrap with steam rollers strapped to the front. If you don't like it, just convert or scrap build, but unless you keep to the dimensions of the official kit, you'll get called out on modeling for advantage.

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Engine of War wrote:
Never figured why.

honestly want to rename the tank to something else. but can't think of a good name.

1. Or maybe GW goons are dog fans and not a fans of cats .. mew!
Leman Russ the Primarch and Lion el Jonson are rivals. and they did a duel. referring to the rivalry of canis (Wolf) and felis (Lion) families in nature.
Back in the days of The Great Crusade. During the invasion of a warlord stronghold, Space wolves led by Russ favors the frontal assault head on using the brute force, Dark Angels, under the leadership of Lion el Jonson. prefer a sneak attack of a feline being (meow). bypassed the strongpoints and easily slip through the tough defense into the warlord's HQ and neutralized the enemy command.. yep i'm talkin' about bloodfeud.

2. Or maybe a pet name that is a pun to real life William T. Sherman

This has already been addressed...
Also you're incorrect about the start of the rivalry between Johnson and Russ...

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Well Ok it does fit the crap FW fluff which then does not fit the rest of the GW fluff.

Did you just call Badab War, Siege of Vraks and Anphelion project crap? LOL....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
The Flat sides that are a grant total of 11 MM of riveted steel you mean.

Actually it's plasteel, and in fluff it manages to defend not just from anti-tank attacks but also from plasma, brighlance and sometimes even railgun shots. Either Russ is reliable tank or xeno technology is c**p for not being able to blow that kind of material..

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
The Flat sides that are a grant total of 11 MM of riveted steel you mean. No even in groups of 30 or better will the tank we see match the fluff, the model image blows in any and every way you look at it.

Not sure where you're getting your 11 mm riveted steel from. Only measurements I can find are at the weakest 100mm (gun mantle) of reinforced plasteel. The hull has 150mm (of which the frontal armour is sloping which makes me think that it must be nearer 200mm in thickness), the superstructure 180mm and turret 200mm. So where has this 11mm come from? From the front, combining both the hull and superstructures armour, that is about 330mm-380mm thick of plasteel! With the sides it's nearer 330mm - a great difference from 11mm. The tank is described as slow moving, a ponderous machine that rolls forward, soaking up damage and just keeps on going - the weight has to come from somewhere and with the massive engines they have, with only 11mm of riveted steel armour they'd be flying along like the A13 Mk II did in the 30s-40s.

One of the FW books, Gives the armor as MM of steel( not plasi steel). And not 150 MM, but 11 or 12 MM of steel.

That's how thick the armour was on this tank;


I wouldn't trust those numbers myself.

I did say more then once the FW stuff was crap did I not? We talked about this one page 2 or 3, someone at FW who got the write the book had no clue how tanks work post WW I. Also that is a better designed tank then the Russ


I have also went though my IG Codex, I can not find any instances of Russs being deployed more then a single regiment, which is not 300 tanks in most. Seems another case of Fluff contradiction GW is so good at.

Aye I know, was just putting down my opinion of those numbers.

The thing about the Imperial Guard's regiments is that there is no fixed regimental size. We have instances of as few as a couple of thousand Guardsmen and up to 500,000 and beyond. Worlds which primarily field armoured regiments probably have thousands of Leman Russ tanks per regiment whilst a world which specialises in light infantry, say Tallarn, would field smaller armoured regiments or perhaps just have squadrons attached to infantry regiments to bolster their firepower.

It's 40k, interpret it as you will.

I know, but I also know the IG is limited by logistics. The IG Codex makes it seem to me at most a Russ regiment has a a hundred or so tanks. It does more or less say a supper heavy tank regiment has about 5 tanks.

The idea that common Russ regiments are 300 strong really is not not supported by the Ig codex.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I did say more then once the FW stuff was crap did I not? We talked about this one page 2 or 3, someone at FW who got the write the book had no clue how tanks work post WW I. Also that is a better designed tank then the Russ


I have also went though my IG Codex, I can not find any instances of Russs being deployed more then a single regiment, which is not 300 tanks in most. Seems another case of Fluff contradiction GW is so good at.

Well, I can't find the total deployed in a single instance, but on Vraks an afternoons local fighting (across a 3x2 kilometer area) left ~100 tanks destroyed, including 11 superheavies and 25 Basilisks/Medusas. The battle was a loss for the IG, but that was only a small portion of their over-all forces. Hundreds of tanks seems to be a pretty standard MO.

All in what ya call standard, I guess. The IG really do not have such a concept as "Standard" regiment. From what I can pull from the IG codex Most pure Tank regiments are not all that large. They could have one with a 150 tanks and one with 12 as they simply do not have a standard size. Now in a full on crusade you may see three of 4 tank regiments all put into play at once, but I do not think that is the norm at all.

Those large sized tank engagements get recalled and even brought up, not because they are the norm, but because they stand out for the large size and loss of so many units.

I dunno if the 41st Millenium warfare validify the needs of Landship designs. Leman Russ has been developed on that concept. towards the needs of mobile fortress yet capable of travelling in the normal streets.

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:
That's how thick the armour was on this tank;


I wouldn't trust those numbers myself.

A tank you've shown here is Cruiser tank, thin armor but fast!

Yes, an A13 Mk. II (Cruiser IV) - if the Leman Russ had 11mm thick steel armour it would be the equivilant of much of the armour on that little bugger (one of my favourite British tanks). Poor cavalry tanks, fast but as much armour as an ice cream van.

The cruiser/cavalry tanks are designed around the concepts of Baroque-era warfare. Cavalry (except the old Cuirassiers) was universally accepted as fast mounted troops armed just barely enough to hit the weak spots or fight the enemy cavs or quick raids on the enemy infantry lines, (Without considering any possiblilty that an enemy formations may hold up in the terrain that flanking is impossible.)
After the WW1 only Russians were actually considered the concepts of Main battle tank--a moderately fast, reasonably big, and thick armor that armed with main guns that capable to deal with different land targets. While Germany put so much efforts designing their vehicles around Blitzkrieg concepts (includes the introduction of mechanized infantry.. which it is actually following the concepts of 'mounted infantry' Dragoons of the late Renaissance, and introduction of armored hafltracks capable of carrying a whole squad of regular infantry in one vehicle!), their main tanks of the 1939. Pz3 (also the looted Czechoslovakian '38' series) and Pz4 was clearly a carbon copy of British Cavalry tank and Infantry tank concept respectively. Pz3 and Pz38t wears similar armor as allied counterparts (and thinner than french S35 medium tank!), Pz4 (in the 1940 French campaign) were no thicker than British Mathilda and thinner than french B1 Bis. and originally designed as bunker buster/anti-fortress weapon but not to fight tanks. but Pz4 large hulls itself made the tank adaptable to the countless variants and upgrades towards the end of the war.

^ Panzer3 in 1940, the size is around the same as american M3 stuart but a bit smaller than british cruiser tanks. both are armed with 37mm AT gun designed by each nation. the 37mm gun that obsolette even at the beginning of the war.

^ Panzer4 d. also in 1940, armed with 75mm gun . too bad it has short barrel and therefore a pure helepolis and no go against other tanks.
Russians did learn from WW1 that tanks are the future of warfare and had purchased many British tanks to design their very own. although they did have cav tanks. (BT series) they use medium ones in head on combat or tank fights... sh. I can't remember the Russian multiturret medium tanks but it is designed to fight in a head on combat. and eventually replaced by T34

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I did say more then once the FW stuff was crap did I not? We talked about this one page 2 or 3, someone at FW who got the write the book had no clue how tanks work post WW I. Also that is a better designed tank then the Russ

Which book? Imperial Armour Volume One: Imperial Guard & Imperial Navy separately states the bare bones Leman Russ as well as the Executioner, Extermnator, Demolisher, Conqueror and Vanquisher to be 100-200mm. Siege of Vraks part 1 says the same about the Annihilator. I'm not saying there isn't a mention of 11mm somewhere, but if so it was likely a typo.

SerQuintus is right, FW Imperial Armory I said that Leman Russ hulls are as follow:
Turret: 200 MM
Superstructure: 180 MM
Hull: 150 MM
Gun Mantlet: 100 MM

Witch is very weak considering that our modern tanks have 350 - 800 MM armor, but a gun of 'only' 125 MM while Russ have 200 MM cannon ( standard version ).

According to my old copy of Epic Space Marine Armies of the Imperium, A single regiment of the Imperial Guard typically consists of 10 to 40 Companies.

Each Company can also include up to 5 support units.

A Leman Russ Company consists of 10 Leman Russ tanks.

A Leman Russ support unit consists of 3 Leman Russ tanks.

So a single Leman Russ Company will have a minimum of 10 Leman Russ Tanks.

And a Maximum of 25 Leman Russ tanks.

So, since a Regiment typically has 10 to 40 Companies, you are talking 100 Leman Russ tanks minimum and 1000 Leman Russ tanks maximum.


Now look at the information for The Armageddon Wars on page 193 of your main rule book and see how many Regiments there were.

That's a LOT of tanks, even considering not every single Regiment was a tank Regiment.


Super Heavy Tank Companies consist of 3 Super Heavy Tanks.

And a Super Heavy support unit can consist of 1 Super Heavy Tank.

So that means a typical Super Heavy Tank Regiment would consist of 30 Super Heavy Tanks minimum and 320 Super Heavy Tanks maximum.

320 Baneblades, now that'd be a pretty sight.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Each Company can also include up to 5 support units.
A Leman Russ Company consists of 10 Leman Russ tanks.
A Leman Russ support unit consists of 3 Leman Russ tanks.
So a single Leman Russ Company will have a minimum of 10 Leman Russ Tanks.
And a Maximum of 25 Leman Russ tanks.

I don't think you're supposed to add tanks as support to tanks. Leman Russ support squadrons are detached infantry backup, to reinforce the footslogger regiments.

"Support units, such as heavy weapons platoons and much valued specialist units such as battle tanks, artillery, and abhuman squads, may be attached to a company for a single battle or entire duration of a campaign. These are rarely permanent additions and are attached as needed by the regimental commanders. It is a common practice, especially amongst armoured and artillery regiments, to break down several companies and second them to infantry forces, in exchange for platoons to provide close support from the attentions of enemy troops."
- 5E C:IG, p9

Also keep in mind that "Armies of the Imperium" was released even before 2nd edition of 40k, and whilst there are quite a lot of things from the RT era that still remain unchanged (at least in GW's version of the setting), we all know that there have been a few retcons.

This is the regimental organisation as per the 2E Codex:

The 5E 'dex also gives the Vostroyan Heavy Armoured 24th as an example for the upper range of numbers, and it consists of 1.500 tankmen. I'm not sure whether a Russ has two or three operators, but depending on the answer we'd be looking at something between 300 (if crewed by 3) and 750 (if crewed by 2) vehicles.
Likewise, regiments comprised of rolling behemoths such as Baneblades and Shadowswords are said to "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks".

Mind you, I'm only discussing GW's vision here - there are surely lots of other interpretations of the setting around, and lack of canon means that all of them are equally valid, but for the sake of common ground I'm focusing on just this one.

Hunterindarkness wrote:Seems another case of Fluff contradiction GW is so good at.

Well, the FW people are a different team of writers and designers. It's not that surprising that they may sometimes come up with conflicting stuff (like those blue-robed Sororitas ).

Remember though that when talking about the IG codex, they are not focusing on Tank Companies at all. This is due to the game not focusing on huge sweeping battles. Instead, it is mainly talking about IG companies. Where it does mention things at the Regiment level, it is again talking about a typical regiment.

IG Tank companies are not typical in the 41st millenium. Infantry companies are.

Super Heavy Regiments are rare in the extreme and most of the time you just get companies of super heavy vehicles. Or detachments. But it does show you what is possible with the IG. If they need to they can and do field super heavies in those numbers. It's just incredibly rare.

And you are right. A sensible commander would be backing up his tanks with troops...but we all know not all IG commanders are sensible. So they have maxed out the tank companies before. Usually when facing things like Gazzy's WAAAG. Or The Horus Heresy. Or the 13th Black Crusade. Those would be the times they would call in that level of firepower.

With this in mind, the organization given in the Epic Space Marine game fits very well with the way the IG would deal with that situation. Note that in the Armageddon Wars they have an IG force called the "Minervan Tank Legions" and list them as being 3 legions strong. While I can't say for certain, I am pretty sure those legions would include the regiments as they are laid out in the Epic game system, rather than the IG codex.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Remember though that when talking about the IG codex, they are not focusing on Tank Companies at all.

But it does. The scan clearly describes "tank companies" on the right page.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Super Heavy Regiments are rare in the extreme and most of the time you just get companies of super heavy vehicles. Or detachments. But it does show you what is possible with the IG. If they need to they can and do field super heavies in those numbers. It's just incredibly rare.

The 5E Codex describes a super-heavy regiment and its standard complement. It doesn't matter how many regiments there are or how many companies or detachments. We've been given a number for how many super-heavies are in the regiment.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:And you are right. A sensible commander would be backing up his tanks with troops...but we all know not all IG commanders are sensible. So they have maxed out the tank companies before. Usually when facing things like Gazzy's WAAAG. Or The Horus Heresy. Or the 13th Black Crusade. Those would be the times they would call in that level of firepower.

He still needs to get the tanks from somewhere. Support elements are not permanently attached to the regiment, they come from another regiment.
Sure, you could - in theory - split up a tank regiment to support another tank regiment. But that still doesn't increase the latter regiment's nominal strength, and I really don't think it would be done all that often. Chiefly because it makes little difference whether you attack with 4 tank regiments of 300 vehicles each, or 3 reinforced tank regiments of 400 vehicles each. You'll only create unnecessary confusion as the elements are (logically) more used to work inside their own regiment rather than alongside another. The only sensible way it would be done would be to distribute "leftover" tanks left over from a regiment that already has been split up to support infantry regiments.

I honestly Have no clue which FW book that came from. Maybe it was a type O or maybe it was someone had no clue how much armor a tank should carry, I am going with the second. And while I know FW and GW are not the same folks, the blame still lays at GW's feet as you need to control your freaking setting. Its simply lazy setting management and not much else.


On the regiment size, yeah the old stuff does not match the 5e codex, which is what I own. I am going with the Idea of the 5e codex overrules the older codex. In that case a 300 Russ regiment may well not be normal at all, and keep in mind they are unlikely to get replacement tanks. And yes it says a regiment of super heavies are 12 units or less.

On the size of the Russ crew. As it is roughly thew size of a M1( models scale be damned) And we know it has a tank commander( so many models of them). It has to at lest have a 4 man crew, Driver, Gunner, loader and commander. It prob has closer to a 5 or 6 man crew with the side guns and an extra man if it has a Vox.. There is no way it has under 4.

Huh, I totally forgot about the sponson guns. Good call, even though they're optional.

As for GW's control over the setting ... well, as ADB once explained, they regard it as "not a bug, but a feature". I'd like a more uniform background as well, but at least this way I can simply discard certain elements from outsourced fluff that don't fit in with my interpretation of studio material.

Ok I found this page http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Leman_Russ_Battle_Tank#.UNtNvuRJP84

Which gives the crew as Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader, 2 Sponson Gunners so 4 min

I am gonna call BS on that explanation as I do with the "We are not a gaming company" BS.

My apologies Lynata, when I said the IG codex isn't focusing on Tank Companies, I meant the current one. not the 2nd edition one. Also note, that the 2nd edition IG codex has exactly the same number of tanks per company that I mentioned the Epic Space Marine game has. 10 tanks per company.

The additional support detachments could also be tanks and do not have to be troops though normally they are.

Also note in the 5th edition codex on Super Heavy Tank Regiments, it says they they "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks."

Note that is says rarely. What does rarely mean in a galaxy of constant war with millions of battlefields? Rarely does also mean that there could very well be a few full strength regiments of 320 strong super heavy vehicles out there. But they are most certainly incredibly rare.

It says in the 5th ed IG codex that a Leman Russ requires 4 people to operate it, 6 if side sponsons are added.

It also says that regiments are typically raised with a strength of several thousand soldiers but the precise numbers can vary enormously.

So because the numbers vary enormously, you can see that we both have good points. There very well could be super large regiments of both super heavy vehicles, and Leman Russ tanks, and they can also be much lower in number. Both are very valid and do not contradict the fluff at all.

 Lynata wrote:

The 5E 'dex also gives the Vostroyan Heavy Armoured 24th as an example for the upper range of numbers, and it consists of 1.500 tankmen. I'm not sure whether a Russ has two or three operators, but depending on the answer we'd be looking at something between 300 (if crewed by 3) and 750 (if crewed by 2) vehicles.

Each Leman Russ has the following: Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader and 2 Sponsor Gunners. That's 6 men per tank, 1500:6 = 250 Leman Russ tanks in that Vostroyan regiment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I honestly Have no clue which FW book that came from.

Maybe it was a type O or maybe it was someone had no clue how much armor a tank should carry, I am going with the second.

While that may be true please bear in mind the following:
M1 Abrams, US Army MBT have 350 - 800 MM thick armor.
T-90, Russia MBT have 700 - 1,650 MM thick armor.

In comparison to two most famous ( Challenger 2 armor is still classified ) MBT's Russ armor is actually quite small. In comparison to him Tiger II "King Tiger" had 180 MM thick armor.

I was talking about the Book I saw it in man. I was not saying it did not say otherwise in another book. 40k contradicts itself in almost every book written, I know it seems to in the few I own.

But yeah even at 100 or 180 MM, steel armor unslopped, riveted armor with such high sides are junk however ya look at it,Also the King tiger would murder a russ it seems to me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
My apologies Lynata, when I said the IG codex isn't focusing on Tank Companies, I meant the current one. not the 2nd edition one. Also note, that the 2nd edition IG codex has exactly the same number of tanks per company that I mentioned the Epic Space Marine game has. 10 tanks per company.

The Current one however is the one that counts. It really does not matter what the old one may or may not have said on the matter.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:


Also note in the 5th edition codex on Super Heavy Tank Regiments, it says they they "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks."

Note that is says rarely. What does rarely mean in a galaxy of constant war with millions of battlefields? Rarely does also mean that there could very well be a few full strength regiments of 320 strong super heavy vehicles out there. But they are most certainly incredibly rare.

I disagree. It says rarely, meaning the standard is 12 or less. while you might get a rare regiment( made up of leftover ones I would guess) that might double that, you will not see a single regiment with 5 or 6 times that number, much less 320. 12 super heavy tanks are
a massive investment for a world.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Also the King tiger would murder a russ it seems to me.

Glad to be of assistance

And I don't think so, even if both their armor is the same ( about 180 - 200 MM ) King Tiger has 88 MM Main Cannon while Leman Russ has 200 MM. Rus would hit it fro much grater range with much grater round.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I was talking about the Book I saw it in man. I was not saying it did not say otherwise in another book. 40k contradicts itself in almost every book written, I know it seems to in the few I own.

But yeah even at 100 or 180 MM, steel armor unslopped, riveted armor with such high sides are junk however ya look at it,Also the King tiger would murder a russ it seems to me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
My apologies Lynata, when I said the IG codex isn't focusing on Tank Companies, I meant the current one. not the 2nd edition one. Also note, that the 2nd edition IG codex has exactly the same number of tanks per company that I mentioned the Epic Space Marine game has. 10 tanks per company.

The Current one however is the one that counts. It really does not matter what the old one may or may not have said on the matter.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:


Also note in the 5th edition codex on Super Heavy Tank Regiments, it says they they "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks."

Note that is says rarely. What does rarely mean in a galaxy of constant war with millions of battlefields? Rarely does also mean that there could very well be a few full strength regiments of 320 strong super heavy vehicles out there. But they are most certainly incredibly rare.

I disagree. It says rarely, meaning the standard is 12 or less. while you might get a rare regiment( made up of leftover ones I would guess) that might double that, you will not see a single regiment with 5 or 6 times that number, much less 320. 12 super heavy tanks are
a massive investment for a world.

And yet, in the current IG codex it states in the year 883.M41 that the Cadian 423rd spearhead the largest armoured assult since the battle for tallarn. Over eight thousand tank companies and thirty five super heavy detachments are annihilated during the near total destruction of a renegade Titan Legio at the planus steppes.

Sounds to me like there are more than just 12

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

And yet, in the current IG codex it states in the year 883.M41 that the Cadian 423rd spearhead the largest armoured assult since the battle for tallarn. Over eight thousand tank companies and thirty five super heavy detachments are annihilated during the near total destruction of a renegade Titan Legio at the planus steppes.

Sounds to me like there are more than just 12

Erm, spearhead means the unit at the front of the army.. all that statement tells you is that there were at least 35 superheavies in the assault, its utterly irrelevant to the discussion of how many there are in a regiment.

I will concede on how many super heavies are in a regiment now because with Apocalypse they have changed the numbers. They can be anywhere from 9 to 12 strong now, but that also includes all of the supply and service vehicles. I was un aware of this because I really haven't read through the IG section of the Apocalypse book until about five minutes ago (I play Eldar in 40k so never had a need to) However, my numbers on Leman Russ tanks remain the same. There are 10 to a company. and a regiment can consist of anywhere from 3 to 20 companies. And when they form these companies they do not form them with troops. This way if the tanks rebel, they can't have the troop support they would need.

So IG Leman Russ Tank Regiments can consist of between 10 and 200 tanks before detachments are added.

They can on the top end, but it is unlikely that is the norm. A Russ regiment could have few as 35 or as many as 250. Very few I guess ever stay at Full numbers for their regiment with combat losses and such.

As for the Size of a regiment l it is as follows.( from page 9 for the 5th ed IG codex)

1 regiment is 3 to 20 companies.
1 Company is 3 to 6 platoons

Heavy units such as the russ count as a a squadron (platoon) 3 being the max size of a Squad. So 9 to a "company" And we know 20 Companies are the upper limit in a single regiment. So a large tank Regiment would be roughly 180 Leman Russ tanks or about 1200 crew.

We also know from the same book it is rare for a full Tank regiment to be deployed as a single unit, much less multiple tank Regiments.

Geez, the Leman russ must have crapped in someone's cereal this morning. Too many people who really have issues with the design of this fictional toy tank.

One of the reasons I got into the Imperial Guard is because I loved the retro look of the tanks. Who cares if its realistic or not? Half the way this game plays is totally unrealistic.

Some of us care man. its a hobby, people Normally care about hobbies. its about 50/50 on the IG tanks from what i can tell, many who play IG do not use the standard models ( I shall not be). And the Russ is not retro, its down right archaic that does not match the rest of the Ig look in the lest.

I'm pretty sure leman russ saved a bunch of guardsmen during the first war of armageddon so they named thier tank after him to honor him.

TheCustomLime wrote:
The Regal Dorn Battle Tank? The Ferrus Manus Battle Tank?

The Vulkan Batle Tank would be way cooler.

 Color Sgt. Kell wrote:
I'm pretty sure leman russ saved a bunch of guardsmen during the first war of armageddon so they named thier tank after him to honor him.

Nope. The first War for Armageddon was fought between Angron and a World Eater Army against the Imperial Guard, Space Wolves and Grey Knights. After the Grey Knights banished Angron, the Inquisition rolled up and herded every single human on the planet into concentration camps and purged the entire population. They would be expunged of Chaos taint and new people would be brought in to populate the world.

The guy you are thinking of is Logan Grimnar, the Space Wolves chapter master. He was outraged at the Inquisitions actions and publicly revealed their crimes. See Logan is one of the people who thinks that killing everyone you just saved rather defeats the purpose. The Wolves and the Inquisition haven't been on good terms since the incident.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Legion of Flame wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:
The Regal Dorn Battle Tank? The Ferrus Manus Battle Tank?

The Vulkan Batle Tank would be way cooler.

Replace all hellhounds with Vulkan Flame Tanks.

Most tanks in 40k would be useless, if real, they are based on early tanks from WW1 (and some from WW2). There is so many things in 40K which is debatable in a real setting (spacemarins on bikes, drop pods, boarding torpedoes etcetera).

The Leman Rus is awesome becaus my commisar says so, anything else is heresy!

I personally don't mind the look of the Leman Russ. I've always liked the look of the treads on it. And I don't really care what anyone else thinks about it, to me it's a cool looking tank. The tanks I can't stand are the Space Marine tanks. Talk about boring looking tanks..they fit the bill there.

Oddly those are based off a more modern design then the Russ, but APC's not tanks.

Hmm maybe they use the leman russ because most people in the far future of the 41st millennium use energy weapons so a "modern" tank designed to stop Kinetic Energy weapons wouldnt do diddly dam squat agianst them. Heck the basic lasgun would turn a Modern MBT into a slag heap after a few shots (or 1 at full power). And has anyone ever thought that maybe the leman russ doesn't actually have riveted armor and the Adeptus mechanicus have no idea what they are and just weld them on because they are shown in the stc.

TheCustomLime wrote:
The Regal Dorn Battle Tank? The Ferrus Manus Battle Tank?

Ferrus Deus would be an awesome name for a tank and fitting, too.

Ninjacommando wrote:
Hmm maybe they use the leman russ because most people in the far future of the 41st millennium use energy weapons so a "modern" tank designed to stop Kinetic Energy weapons wouldnt do diddly dam squat agianst them. Heck the basic lasgun would turn a Modern MBT into a slag heap after a few shots (or 1 at full power). And has anyone ever thought that maybe the leman russ doesn't actually have riveted armor and the Adeptus mechanicus have no idea what they are and just weld them on because they are shown in the stc.

That would be armor dependent . Really if you do not want to get hit making it tall, wide with nice barn sized flat sides is not the way to go.

Ninjacommando wrote:
Hmm maybe they use the leman russ because most people in the far future of the 41st millennium use energy weapons so a "modern" tank designed to stop Kinetic Energy weapons wouldnt do diddly dam squat agianst them. Heck the basic lasgun would turn a Modern MBT into a slag heap after a few shots (or 1 at full power). And has anyone ever thought that maybe the leman russ doesn't actually have riveted armor and the Adeptus mechanicus have no idea what they are and just weld them on because they are shown in the stc.

People in the far future use normal kinetic weapons as well. And no, lasguns aren't remotely that powerful. From what we can see in the fluff, most basic 40k weapons aren't much different from equivalent modern day weapons.

 KingDeath wrote:

Ninjacommando wrote:
Hmm maybe they use the leman russ because most people in the far future of the 41st millennium use energy weapons so a "modern" tank designed to stop Kinetic Energy weapons wouldnt do diddly dam squat agianst them. Heck the basic lasgun would turn a Modern MBT into a slag heap after a few shots (or 1 at full power). And has anyone ever thought that maybe the leman russ doesn't actually have riveted armor and the Adeptus mechanicus have no idea what they are and just weld them on because they are shown in the stc.

People in the far future use normal kinetic weapons as well. And no, lasguns aren't remotely that powerful. From what we can see in the fluff, most basic 40k weapons aren't much different from equivalent modern day weapons.

I was under the impression that modern day anti-tank are roughly equivilent to auto-cannons, but things like Lascannons and especially Meltaguns are far in advance of "modern" weapons. But yes there's no way a lasgun could even blow up a car let alone an A1 Abrams.

It is worth considering that modern armour designs are entirely focused, at least in the west, on stopping kinetic weapons; look at how vulnerable the Abrams is to HEAT rounds to see that; can stop SABOT without any trouble, 50 year old RPG-7V can reliably disable it.

A lot can be explained away by armour advances in regards to the Russ, but the rivets and profile can not.

Doesn't matter what you make it out of, a big profile is never an advantage to a tank, and riveted armour will be unnecessarily vulnerable to kinetic force. It won't matter much with a directed energy weapon, and a lot of other imperial tanks appear to have "layered" armour, such as the baneblade, where the rivets appear only on supplementary armoured plates on top of the superstructure, representing what is likely an ablative layer of armour for protection against DEWs, with an armoured superstructure underneath with more focus on kinetic protection.

But then the Baneblade isn't actually a horribly designed tank, excessive and not well suited to the real world's armoured warfare, but fits 40k well. Take off the secondary weapons and scale it down, and it isn't much different than a T-90 in terms of layout. The Russ just doesn't make much sense; it's a big riveted box. If you ignore FW (which is a good idea), you can explain away the armour as being better, as in BL books it is often referred to as plasteel, ceramite or other forms of 40k armour, not "steel", but the layout and preference for rivets is still stupid.

If anything, I view the Russ as a relic from when 40k was completely seperated from reality; the Imperial Guard in particular has become more grounded in actual fact, and dare I say, science, than RT era stuff; the designs of vehicles are logic and functional, the weapons are largely within the realm of reason and plausibility, but the Russ is a leftover from a sillier age, but has become too iconic to change. People are still angry about the squat removal, a secondary faction with ridiculous models, horrible backstory and no real game or universe niche, and only existed for a very short periood of time, imagine if GW tried to redesign the Russ into something more realistic? Some people would be happy, just like how some people were happy the Squats and other more fantasy-esque elements were removed as 40k matured, but it would alienate a lot of old Guard players, and 40k players in general, as the Russ, as it stands, is a key part of the "identity" of 40k, aside from the baneblade, it's probably the single most recognized Imperial Guard unit in the game.

Guardsmen, Chimeras, Basilisks and Commissars you can tweak, alter, and occassionally radically redesign, but the Russ, that'd be hard.

The Mars Pattern at least does away with that awful looking pillbox for the Lascannon/Bolter and extends the main body some to make some sloped frontal armor. The treads and sides are still the problem.

 KingDeath wrote:

Ninjacommando wrote:
Hmm maybe they use the leman russ because most people in the far future of the 41st millennium use energy weapons so a "modern" tank designed to stop Kinetic Energy weapons wouldnt do diddly dam squat agianst them. Heck the basic lasgun would turn a Modern MBT into a slag heap after a few shots (or 1 at full power). And has anyone ever thought that maybe the leman russ doesn't actually have riveted armor and the Adeptus mechanicus have no idea what they are and just weld them on because they are shown in the stc.

People in the far future use normal kinetic weapons as well. And no, lasguns aren't remotely that powerful. From what we can see in the fluff, most basic 40k weapons aren't much different from equivalent modern day weapons.

Calculations from the books. Here are the ones taken from factpile

Eisenhorn Omnibus, page 483:
“I fired my laspistol, powering shot after shot at him, driving him backwards. His gold-chest battle suit, which gave his shrivelled frame the bulk and frame and proportions of a Space Marine, absorbed or deflected the impacts, but the sheer force knocked him back several paces.”

A) The man in the suit is a withered old Witch Hunter, who whilst receiving the benefit of the suits augmented strength, is relatively perhaps not the best candidate to wear Astartes gear in comparison to half a ton of naked Space Marine. Kind of obvious, but you need it spelled out for you.

B) Assuming that the old man weighs somewhere in the average 100kg range – for someone capable of wearing a two and a half meter tall suit without collapsing under their own weight – then coupled with the added tonnage of the suit itself, the Las-Pistol is capable of physically forcing (as the quote implies) 1.1 tons of mass at a distance of three meters; assuming of course that we’re talking about Space Marine sized paces.

Which means that a mass-less, photon based beam form the standard Imperial sidearm is capable of exerting 3300 newtons of force; in comparison a .50 caliber sniper rifle round generates only 20.59 newtons, it takes 700 newtons to lift a man off his feet and throw him, and the Gauss Cannon (the heaviest infantry operated anti-vehicle projectile weapon in the UNSC) is only responsible for less than a thousand newtons.

C) Last, and most importantly, he survived. Said beams, regardless of their imparted force and energy, were being deflected harmlessly off his suit; which when you think about the Las-Pistols ability to flash boil meter long Fish submerged in cold sea water, is incredibly impressive.

———-

“Uriel turned to the sheltering Ultramarines and shouted, ‘Follow me!’ – A lasbolt struck him square in the chest. Uriel staggered, but did not fall, the eagle at the centre of his breastplate running molten. Chaplain Clausel rose to his feet.’

This is the only mention of Lasgun melting I could find, which is bizarre because the actual impact only melts the Eagle emblem itself, and nothing else (the rest of the time it only scores, or blackens the paint).

First of all, laser weapons (as I’ve demonstrated) generate a lot of elastic force upon impact, thousands of newtons in fact from a Las-Pistol alone, so this shouldn’t come as a surprise that it causes him to stagger.

Secondly, we have no idea what the Emblem itself is made of, therefore we can almost any material density from silicon to industrial steel and still not ascertain an accurate answer. However, let’s assume that the Emblem is made of Iron and has a rectangular dimension of 30 cm x100 cm x1 cm for a total volume of 3000 cm^3; then at a density of 7.874 gram per cubic centimeter, the Emblem would have a mass of approximately 23.622 kg. The energy required to melt iron (heat it from 150K to melting point and then add latent heat of fusion) is roughly 1.28 MJ/kg, therefore the energy required to melt the entire emblem would be equal to 30.236 megajoules. Of course this is merely a low end that doesn’t take into account ablation, chemical impurities and other factors that would decrease the overall value.

Now that is a spicy meatball. In comparison, here are the listed energy ratings of the following weapons and rounds per use:

M1911A1 .45 ACP: 0.47 kilojoules
AK-47 (7.62x39mm): 2.01 kilojoules
BR55HB SR Battle Rifle (Halo): 4.05 kilojoules
Barrett M82 (.50 BMG): 20.1 kilojoules
Agrpinaa pattern militia autogun (40K): 33.6 kilojoules
M67 grenade: 600 kilojoules

Of course, one should note that the damage mechanism between laser, kinetic and explosive weaponry is not uniform. Therefore a high megajoule laser, whilst capable of cremating a human alive, will not necessarily penetrate tank armor (although it would turn large portions to slag) due to the noted inefficiencies in both kinetic impacts and thermal heating. Laser weapons such as the Lasgun usually generate brief high-energy pulses in large quantities, so a single megajoule delivered as a laser pulse is roughly the same energy as 200g of high explosive, and has the same basic effect on a target.

all from L-W from factpile

Cant find the one about the lasgun at full power/hot shot but it is even worse.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
from what i can tell, many who play IG do not use the standard models

That surprises me, personally, as in the nigh-on 18 years I've played 40k I've not seen anyone use any model other than the Leman Russ tank to represent it, especially in local gaming groups I've been members of. Maybe it's a preference thing between EU & America?

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
its down right archaic that does not match the rest of the Ig look in the lest.

I'd argue differently, personally. A lot of the imagery of the Imperium is in bleak, straight gothic & baroque lines and a lot of things in the Imperium reflects that - take Imperial Navy ships as an example, not the graceful lines of Eldar craft for them but harsh, angular lines and square shapes. The Leman Russ follows that imagery by having sharp, angular lines, being square/box shaped. It's one of those things, in the same way the Thunderbolt is full of harsh angles and sharp lines, as is the Marauder, the Chimera chassis, the Vulture, the Valkyrie with its box shaped hull, the sharp lines of Cadian flak & carapace armour, of the Kasrkin hellgun energy/back packs, the Sentinel's body, the Aquila lander, the Arvis lighter - IG & IN are full of the sharp angular lines which make up the imagery of the Imperium, just the Leman Russ is one of the biggest, obvious examples of it.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
The Mars Pattern at least does away with that awful looking pillbox for the Lascannon/Bolter and extends the main body some to make some sloped frontal armor. The treads and sides are still the problem.

That is something I really don't like on the standard plastic version. Have to say the FW Ryza pattern Leman Russ with vanquisher turret and that co-axial heavy stubber is gorgeous. Absolutely love it.

Interestingly enough. Leman Russ and Land Raider provided inspirations to many Scifi games. especially since THQ released GW-Licensed 40koW, the all-enclosed bogie tracks AFB designs became more common than before.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
They can on the top end, but it is unlikely that is the norm. A Russ regiment could have few as 35 or as many as 250. Very few I guess ever stay at Full numbers for their regiment with combat losses and such.

As for the Size of a regiment l it is as follows.( from page 9 for the 5th ed IG codex)

1 regiment is 3 to 20 companies.
1 Company is 3 to 6 platoons

Heavy units such as the russ count as a a squadron (platoon) 3 being the max size of a Squad. So 9 to a "company" And we know 20 Companies are the upper limit in a single regiment. So a large tank Regiment would be roughly 180 Leman Russ tanks or about 1200 crew.

We also know from the same book it is rare for a full Tank regiment to be deployed as a single unit, much less multiple tank Regiments.

So the IG organizational hierachy is much simpler than either US Army or British ones? that means. lingo likes "Division, Subdivision, Brigade, Corps" as anything larger than 'regiment' doesn't exists by 41st millenium?

 Lone Cat wrote:


So the IG organizational hierachy is much simpler than either US Army or British ones? that means. lingo likes "Division, Subdivision, Brigade, Corps" as anything larger than 'regiment' doesn't exists by 41st millenium?

Not in the Guard no. The Regiment is a self contained unit for the most part, once it leaves home it never goes back. They only have the three, but it is not as Organized as modern units in many ways. They are what ever the world who created them can afford to send.

Other formations do exist but GW doesn't bother to mention them that often.

In Imperial Armour III the Guard portion of the Taros Invasion Force was the 4621st Imperial Guard Army, which was comprised of two Corps of five Regiments each. The 17th Tallarn Desert Raider Regiment was given a detailed breakdown and consisted of 4 Brigades of 8-9 Companies each.

In Imperial Armour V the Guard portion of the Vraks invasion force was the 88th Imperial Guard (Kreig) Siege Army, which consisted of 8 Korps (each of 3-5 Regiments)

How old are those however? As far as I know the 5e IG codex is the word on IG information. I really do not trust many other books as like everything else 40k it contradicts the hell out of itself.

Older than the 5e Codex certainly, but since page 7 of said Codex mentions twice that "army groups" are comprised of multiple regiments but fails to go into any explicit detail I see nothing wrong with using the Imperial Armour book to fill in the blanks.

Page 24 of the Codex mentions "Chenkov's armoured brigades"

Yes, they are names. The codex however makes it clear no matter what the name or how they were structured elsewhere, when they become IG they conform to the IG structure. So yes you can call them whatever, but the name "brigade" is just that , a name and not a structure of command.

When you have a conflict, go with the prime source of info. In this case that is the current Codex. Making anything that contradicts it the "false" information.

The prime source would be Imperial armour volume 1 then, because it has recently been writen for 6th edition which would make the 5ed codex the false information

So the 5e IG codex is no longer the official codex of IG? or is the Imperial Armour volume 1 a supplemental book?

Edit: what I am finding Imperial Armour volume 1 is from 2003...so its older.

Imperial Armour Volume 1 Second Edition: IMPERIAL GUARD came out last month so its "fluff" would be the most current about the imperial Guard.

Only if it was the official IG codex. Unless it replaces the 5th edition IG codex it is simply more contractions that are all to common with 40k. And in that case you go with the official Codex of the army.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Only if it was the official IG codex. Unless it replaces the 5th edition IG codex it is simply more contractions that are all to common with 40k. And in that case you go with the official Codex of the army.

You'll find they're often not contradictions, though. More often the codex is simply silent on an issue, or only addresses it very briefly, while another source fills in more detail.

While that is true in some cases, not all. I find far to many contradiction in 40k for my taste, but eh ya pick one as correct and ignore the rest. In the case above however FW are not the prime rule book but supplemental rule books( If I recall it even states for you to make sure the other guys is ok with you using FW rules and such). So yeah, in a conflict they are over ruled. Some folks might like the FW stuff better however and ignore the prime source.

Gotta love it when people try to apply logic to a fictional universe.

Better designs take time to build, something that is not necessarily available to a galaxy constantly fighting for survival. Also, the IoM doesn't care if your survive or not if you're below the rank of captain.

TechMarine1 wrote:
Gotta love it when people try to apply logic to a fictional universe.

Better designs take time to build, something that is not necessarily available to a galaxy constantly fighting for survival. Also, the IoM doesn't care if your survive or not if you're below the rank of captain.

You down using logic..then try to use logic? Anyhow your argument is a poor one, it would tank no longer and most likely fewer resources to build a good effective tank then the junk Russ.

Sloped armour doesnt protect any better against directed-Energy Weapons which are the most common anti-tank weapons in the 40k verse. Imean the only people who use AP shells are the Imperium, Chaos, and the Orks(and the orks don't really count because said AP shell could be a carved rock and it would still explode because the orks thinks it does). The only people who use KE weapons are the tau. Everyone else (including those who listed) use Energy weapons/living bullets.

Armies uses kinetic rounds in 40K, kinda often. Even if they did not, the crap diesign lacking even slopped armored is the whole point. The Russ is a crap design with lasers, its a crap design with more or less any fire arm or anti tank weapon. Its huge, wide, long and is a nice big target.

On the subject of if there are other things than just regiments in the IG i refer you to the basic rule book of 6th edition. Page 193.

Notice that it does mention under the Imperial Guard things such as:

Arm. Command Guard.....5 companies

Elysian Drop Troops....14 Squadrons

Jopall Indentured Sqdns.....17 Battalions

Minervian Tank Legions....3 Legions

Zouvan Skirmishers.....4 Brigades

Take particular note of the Jopall Indentured Squadrons as they are named Squadrons but formed into Battalions.

They did the same thing again on page 231 of the Basic Rule Book for 6th edition for the Force Dispositions at the outset of the Thirteenth Black Crusade of Abaddon the Despoiler.

So, yes, the IG does have more organization than just what is written in the codex. As has been said in many codexes in the past, this particular codex will allow you to form the most commonly seen IG companies and regiments, not the entire organization of the IG.

The Leman Russ is shorter then any MBT out today
Comparison to other MBT

Leman russ
Height: 4.42m
Width: 4.86m
Length: 7.08m

Abrams
Height: 2.44m
Width: 3.66m
Length: 7.93m

Leopard 2
Height: 3m
Width: 3.75m
Length: 9.97m (that’s including the gun but I think it’s closer to the 8m of the Abrams)

And the Leman Russ’s front armor is sloped just at a very crappy angle but then again the look at Abrams it’s boxy as hell because sloped armor is starting to go away because of Composite armor and long-rod Penetrators

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
On the subject of if there are other things than just regiments in the IG i refer you to the basic rule book of 6th edition. Page 193.

Thank ya, I had not picked up the new book yet. However squadron is another name form "platoon" in the codex. Its what they call the support/tank "platoons". Without more data, I think you are just seeing other names for the same base structure. Does the book give sizes for them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

And the Leman Russ’s front armor is sloped just at a very crappy angle but then again the look at Abrams it’s boxy as hell because sloped armor is starting to go away because of Composite armor and long-rod Penetrators

Man give it up. You can not compare the two or three. The Russ would be very dead meat by even something like a tiger. its to big, to tall, large flat sides with no suspension. It really is overly antiquated junk. You can not justify it as there is zero in setting logic for it and it does not match fluff, someone simply thought it looked cool.

Again flat sides are starting to become the norm in modern tank design because of composite armor, the only part that is "sloped" is the front because that is most likely area that will be hit because you will be facing the enemy armor and firing on them from 2+ miles away.
The russ is made out of Plasteel&ceramite(which is pretty much used in everything from houses(low grade) to Terminator armor(highest grade)) so futuristic plastic steel mixture + Ceramic layers thrown in there = pretty dang though armor. There is a suspension system just a very gakky one.

Actually sloped armor IS much more effective against directed energy weapons, but yes, modern tank armor has less need of it.

I always thought the Leman Russ was very silly but after buying one (I wanted it for an ork projekt) I appreciated it a bit more.

The lack of ground clearance is alarming but the size of the main weapon compared to the turret and the rest of the vehicle is my main complaint. It is kinda funny that it can go toe to toe with a Hammerhead, for instance. Visually it shouldn't have any chance. I guess you have to suspend belief or just argue that it's actually waaaaaay more sophisticated than it looks!

As I said man, the Russ is a bad design any how you look at it. Its simply primitive. You can not compare it to changes in Modern designs as it includes none. You are really just trying to make excuses that do not fit. The Russ is a WWI or at best intrea war era design. It has no suspension, it has high tracks, high sides and is twice the height of a modern tank. It uses riveted freaking armor, not ultra modern anything.

You can make the Russ out of anything you like, that will not change the flawed and more or less useless design man. The image of the Russ was design for cool, its a Mki or Mk iv with a turret. No one at GW seems to know anything about tanks, FW either to be honest. Which is fine, unless you try to ya know write tank fluff and details as if you did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:
It is kinda funny that it can go toe to toe with a Hammerhead, for instance. Visually it shouldn't have any chance. I guess you have to suspend belief or just argue that it's actually waaaaaay more sophisticated than it looks!

Yes, the model and image are incorrect or the fluff and stats are. As they have used this thing for ages and its a STC design, I bet its the image that are wrong.


You are also correct on ground clearance and the tanks scale, bad design or not is way off. No way you get 6 men and 40 shells+ side armaments ammo in that thing. It should prob be about super tank scale on the able at lest.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
The Leman Russ is shorter then any MBT out today
Comparison to other MBT

Leman russ
Height: 4.42m
Width: 4.86m
Length: 7.08m

Abrams
Height: 2.44m
Width: 3.66m
Length: 7.93m

Leopard 2
Height: 3m
Width: 3.75m
Length: 9.97m (that’s including the gun but I think it’s closer to the 8m of the Abrams)

And the Leman Russ’s front armor is sloped just at a very crappy angle but then again the look at Abrams it’s boxy as hell because sloped armor is starting to go away because of Composite armor and long-rod Penetrators

1. Does Leman Russ width measured without sponson upgrade?
2. So it appears that Leman Russ is designed to maximize firepower into its relatively small hull size, then warfare in the 41st millenium is much different to ones in our days i think. bah! today Footsloggers still fear tanks and likely to appreciate any armored supports provided by their high command.
3. But one of FW books has a cutaway pictures of Russ and Chimera with spring-mounted suspension system. one of GW artwork displays Chimera with raised roadwheels.

I always pictured the Russ like todays BMPs in the middle east. (Not Russia) They are old.... They are out dated.... they are reliable... They are simple and easily mass produced on the cheap.



IDK kind of like the AK-47. It goes toe to toe with the tricked out kitted out M-4 yet it can be barried in mud and used by any one with minimal to no training.

The Russ to me adds to the expendability of guardsmen, You guys arnt worht the R&D or $ to find you better stuff

I think it's more about the technology culture.
If the guys building tanks see machines as gods, then suggesting that something is wrong with the design of a machine is saying that their is something wrong with god.

The fluff of 40K is yesterday was awesome, today sucks, tomorrow is worse. Anything old must be better than anything new. Therefor anything from the golden-age must be the better than trying to anything new. With so much old tech floating around, making something new is also akin to thinking you're better than the machine god.

The basic russ gets the job done. It's apparently easy to make and cheap, and several factories are set up to be turning them out. It's just easier to keep making the same old tank then refitting several huge factories.

-Matt

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
As I said man, the Russ is a bad design any how you look at it. Its simply primitive. You can not compare it to changes in Modern designs as it includes none. You are really just trying to make excuses that do not fit. The Russ is a WWI or at best intrea war era design. It has no suspension, it has high tracks, high sides and is twice the height of a modern tank. It uses riveted freaking armor, not ultra modern anything.

You can make the Russ out of anything you like, that will not change the flawed and more or less useless design man. The image of the Russ was design for cool, its a Mki or Mk iv with a turret. No one at GW seems to know anything about tanks, FW either to be honest. Which is fine, unless you try to ya know write tank fluff and details as if you did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:
It is kinda funny that it can go toe to toe with a Hammerhead, for instance. Visually it shouldn't have any chance. I guess you have to suspend belief or just argue that it's actually waaaaaay more sophisticated than it looks!

Yes, the model and image are incorrect or the fluff and stats are. As they have used this thing for ages and its a STC design, I bet its the image that are wrong.


You are also correct on ground clearance and the tanks scale, bad design or not is way off. No way you get 6 men and 40 shells+ side armaments ammo in that thing. It should prob be about super tank scale on the able at lest.

\

I don't understand why your so butt hurt over the fact that the Russ is a bad design... I remember you starting a few threads like this awile ago.. I understand that you didn't start this so you really shouldn't carry on the tread. Someone already answered the OP on page 3...this is page 9, give it up.

sirlotsofpain wrote:
I always pictured the Russ like todays BMPs in the middle east. (Not Russia) They are old.... They are out dated.... they are reliable... They are simple and easily mass produced on the cheap.



IDK kind of like the AK-47. It goes toe to toe with the tricked out kitted out M-4 yet it can be barried in mud and used by any one with minimal to no training.

The Russ to me adds to the expendability of guardsmen, You guys arnt worht the R&D or $ to find you better stuff

BMP serves Chimera function, Leman Russ should be either Patton or T55, MBTs that many nations still use.
Saying that Admech never updates anything is sorely wrong. They still build Leman Russ since the days of Primarches, if they don't have RnD, can you explain why;
1. Macharius Heavy tank came to being? the design doesn't come from any existing STC printouts Admech had been collected so far. instead it has been crafted ground up by someone in Admech.
2. Kreigsche uses tankettes and Ragnarok heavy tanks in the 500 years civil war? some Death Korps still uses one too! only tankette (Siegfred) comes from an STC printouts Discovered by Arkhan Land. Ragnaroks were entirely new designs?
3. And even some vostroyans do use Ragnaroks instead of Russ?
4. Mars Alpha pattern Leman Russ came to being? this tank maintains some aesthetics of Russ as you know it but update others.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
As I said man, the Russ is a bad design any how you look at it. Its simply primitive. You can not compare it to changes in Modern designs as it includes none. You are really just trying to make excuses that do not fit. The Russ is a WWI or at best intrea war era design. It has no suspension, it has high tracks, high sides and is twice the height of a modern tank. It uses riveted freaking armor, not ultra modern anything.

I would love to add that really the only justification for riveted freaking armor may be that fancy future steel cant be wielded due to its specific property. All in all though I can let go the lack of sloped armor but the russ has no business being as tall as it is and should get stuck on every single obstacle it ever faces.

Speaking of armor Im surprised they don’t add RPG cages against missiles as that seems to be the main enemy except against other imperial equipment. (It’s slit armor that forces RPG to detonate in front of the main armor instead of surface to prevent amour penetration.) (And if they did I haven’t seen it yet so my bad)

 kinratha wrote:

I don't understand why your so butt hurt over the fact that the Russ is a bad design... I remember you starting a few threads like this awile ago.. I understand that you didn't start this so you really shouldn't carry on the tread. Someone already answered the OP on page 3...this is page 9, give it up.

Somethings people just dislike about a setting man, for me its the stupid outdated and plan archaic and ineffective 40k IG tanks.It started here because someone asked me about it. If you quote someone and discuss things they have said, ya have to expect they will respond man. Its not like I am the only one keeping this going. The thread has drifted from the OP's topic which is finished anyhow, There really is no need to be snarky about it, if you do not wish to join the discussion,no one is making you do so man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:


I would love to add that really the only justification for riveted freaking armor may be that fancy future steel cant be wielded due to its specific property. All in all though I can let go the lack of sloped armor but the russ has no business being as tall as it is and should get stuck on every single obstacle it ever faces.

You can not in setting justify the Rivets, its a look someone with zero understanding of the subject though looked cool. People keep trying to justify an in setting reason for something that has nothing to really do with the setting, the Russ if I recall dates back to the silly days of 40k. The rest of the setting moved out of super silly, the Russ did not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

The fluff of 40K is yesterday was awesome, today sucks, tomorrow is worse. Anything old must be better than anything new. Therefor anything from the golden-age must be the better than trying to anything new. With so much old tech floating around, making something new is also akin to thinking you're better than the machine god.

The basic russ gets the job done. It's apparently easy to make and cheap, and several factories are set up to be turning them out. It's just easier to keep making the same old tank then refitting several huge factories.

-Matt

Yes that is indeed the Fluff, but the image does not match that fluff. The Russ we see is not an STC design, its a design from the first era of tanks. And really it can not get the job done it does in fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlotsofpain wrote:
I always pictured the Russ like todays BMPs in the middle east. (Not Russia) They are old.... They are out dated.... they are reliable... They are simple and easily mass produced on the cheap.

The BMP's however unlike the Russ are well designed and effective at what they are meant to do.Also they are APC's not Tanks.

Here's the REAL story behind the Russ...

Those aren't rivets: most are miniature explosive reactive armor modules designed to protect the solid joints of the armor (the rest being a hybridized sheer thickening liquid), while others are part of the vehicle's passive sensor array.

That isn't an inadequate suspension: the spinning tread creates a co-static inverse gravitic field as the tank glides mere millimeters above the terrain.

That's not an over-sized barrel: the munition starts out as a 75mm telescoping round but during its flight down the barrel an expanding sabot and stabilizing wings deploy for hypervelocity travel to the target.

That's probably not even a sword in the tank commander's hand! It could be a multi-band radio relay or a range finding reflector grid!

Um…or not.