I don't think the leman Russ is as bad a design as most people make it out because they are comparing it to modern war, and not 40k warfare.
So firstly the tracks aren't skinny they are actually some of the best track width to tank width of any tank real, or fictional the tank being 5 times wider then 0ne track, with most WWII being 7x wider, and the best ratio of any tank only being 4x wider.
The track layout, is for trench warfare which the guard do A LOT. if you try crossing trenches the size of an average WWI trench with a modern MBT it fails.
Due to the track layout the sides have to be big and flat, which while a problem, any sloped sides tank in history has done worse than a flat one, either because of the ridiculously extra weight of it creates shot traps that are easier to penetrate than flat armour.
The turret is not actually that small because it uses an auto loader and all autoloader tanks have got tiny turrets in comparison to manual, why the imperial navy doesn't use autoloaders I will never know. Also the tank commander has all the equipment he needs to work effectively, and the smaller the turret the smaller the target.
Where they can they have actually sloped the armour like at the front or back.
Sponsoons are actually very good in trench warfare with in WWI sponsoon armed tanks doing better than turreted tanks, but with the leman russ sometimes being used in wide open fields, and cities it does need a turret.
And a final thing is people think that its top heavy, but it can actually go up to an angle of 75 degrees tilted to the side, which is actually very impressive, real life, or at least the models can, but the actuall tank would have more weight lower down, so even better than the model.
The Vanquisher and Battle Cannon would have to have an unusual breech and no recoil to keep from castrating the commander in the cupola.
It’s probably also not a very fast tank, as it appears to lack any visible suspension- unless it has some sort of floating, retractable suspension that is only engaged when moving cross-county.
It’s definately a different beast from our modern designs, and whether it works or not in the real world, I don’t care. It’s a damn sexy model.
Stormonu wrote: The Vanquisher and Battle Cannon would have to have an unusual breech and no recoil to keep from castrating the commander in the cupola.
It’s probably also not a very fast tank, as it appears to lack any visible suspension- unless it has some sort of floating, retractable suspension that is only engaged when moving cross-county.
It’s definately a different beast from our modern designs, and whether it works or not in the real world, I don’t care. It’s a damn sexy model.
Well the tiger tank could remove 80% recoil modern tanks 90% so who knows maybe they can remove it all, but it actuall can go 70KMP which for normal people is around 35MPH faster than most MBT's now, but still not close to Russia's WWII t-50 that could go 50MPH and DRIFT, man that thing was so funny in the videos of it in combat. I mean it has only got a 45mm gun but who care.
Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.
The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.
The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.
The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.
The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.
The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.
The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.
I often disagree with Peregrine, but he's right in this situation. Lemans have excellent fluff and their models in EPIC are more size appropriate.
Flatten the model, flatten the turret, put on wider tracks, put on a track suspension, move the hatches to more realistic positions for the commander et all, make the side sponsons go away or smaller, remote operated weaponry, then you have a better design.
Stormonu wrote: An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.
Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.
This is true. Tank warfare doesn't so much come down to the quality of the tanks as it does to the ease of maintainence of the tanks. Of course, given the state the Imperium is in, I doubt Leman Russes are easy to maintain, either. Praying to tanks has historically accomplished very little.
Welllll, the tanks are designed by people who have to chant and rub oil on things before they even turn the keys, so we have to take that into consideration. Additionally from what I remember the Russ started out as something entirely different, a crane or a tractor of some kind. They have simply modified an extremely hardy design that is presumably super cheap to build. Nothing in the guard is elegant or makes sense. Its cheap and its functional. Most importantly it does its job, and if it doesn't, the other 10 rolling in behind it will.
So yes, I agree that the design isn't bad. Its not good by any measurable standard, but for what the Imperium needs it to do its perfect. A society that wastes effort to make giant stone cathedrals on spaceships cares very little for "efficient" design.
Now this is a real WWII tank. Its a B1 French tank. It actually has many of the problems a Leman would have. However, add some sponsons, switch the guns and there you go. It does have a suspension system, just a sucky one based on WWI designs.
Here is a better of what a Leman could look like, based on what I think is a PZ III chassis. Forgive the German iconography. It has a FW turret on it.
Stormonu wrote: An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.
Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.
This is true. Tank warfare doesn't so much come down to the quality of the tanks as it does to the ease of maintainence of the tanks. Of course, given the state the Imperium is in, I doubt Leman Russes are easy to maintain, either. Praying to tanks has historically accomplished very little.
True, but at this point in the lore I think we can be fairly certain that machine spirits are a real thing. At least in some instances. So in the 40k setting, it may genuinely make a difference!
The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.
The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.
So this is fake news to you?
Not sure what your point is, since that tank doesn't have the LRBT's idiotic track design.
The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.
The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.
The ground clearance is better than modern MBT's. but yes the suspension is a BIG problem, but if you look at WWI tanks just like the leman Russ you would say it has no suspension, but they do, but because they are a TRENCH WARFARE tank its essentially a field of mud and so suspension, isn't needed.
Also I'm not saying the russ is perfect just better than most people think, particularly when used as a trench warfare tank. I do think the imperium needs a true MBT though, and I think the perfect tank to model it of is either the German panther, or the British Chieftain, preferably the Chieftain because it looks like it belongs 40k its a good design, and it is a MEAN looking tank, a REALLY MEAN looking tank.
The B1 turret may look to be a similar proportion to the Russ turret, but the B1 gun is super tiny by comparison and hence there is room for a person up there too.
Assuming a Cadian is 6 feet tall, the bore of the Battle Cannon is around 12". Surely it could not fire a conventional cannon shell of that size. I don't really read the novels, is it supposed to be firing rockets or something?
If it was a little longer, the turret a little sleeker (or a set back a little, it's a bit cartoonishly perky) and that main gun a little less of a mortar...
Peregrine wrote: The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.
The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.
Uh, what? You can see elements of suspension right there on the sides (plus, there are compromises in detail shown especially on the side of model that is rarely looked at), it has larger clearance than say Abrams, it's just not obvious due to the proportions, and I can name at least half a dozen tanks with similar track system that drove just fine. Maybe it wouldn't be the fastest thing ever, but it's silly to call historical, proven examples that actually won several wars to be wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Here is a better of what a Leman could look like, based on what I think is a PZ III chassis. Forgive the German iconography. It has a FW turret on it.
That is actually StuG III, and putting a turret on that is kinda funny
Also, on the gun complaint above. StuG had 75 mm gun (it's the thing below turret). LR has 152 mm, so it should be about twice the width of the StuG one. It isn't, due to dumb heroic scale, but if you shrink if down to 'real' proportions (especially seeing LR stores main gun ammo in the rear of the turret, and something meant for the pipe model has would never fit) all the nitpicks about gun size and placement suddenly disappear...
Frazzled wrote: Flatten the model, flatten the turret, put on wider tracks, put on a track suspension, move the hatches to more realistic positions for the commander et all, make the side sponsons go away or smaller, remote operated weaponry, then you have a better design.
But why?
Modern tanks are flattened and angled because biggest threat for them is kinetic weapons. If the threat was, say, energy weapons of the M42, straight, big plate might withstand impacts better and disperse it over larger surfaces. Ignoring the context the tank is supposed to fight in and just copy-pasting current tank look because it's "realistic" is kind of wrong. Also, the more room inside, the larger comfort for the crew and the more supplies they can carry. In fact, I'd say it's too small in places.
Flinty wrote: The B1 turret may look to be a similar proportion to the Russ turret, but the B1 gun is super tiny by comparison and hence there is room for a person up there too.
Yes, the LR's battlecannon is absurdly large, like storm drain sized. In the real world B1 they had to put the 75mm in the hull. I think the turret had a 37.5mm but I could be wrong.
deotrims 16th wrote: I don't think the leman Russ is as bad a design as most people make it out because they are comparing it to modern war, and not 40k warfare.
So firstly the tracks aren't skinny they are actually some of the best track width to tank width of any tank real, or fictional the tank being 5 times wider then 0ne track, with most WWII being 7x wider, and the best ratio of any tank only being 4x wider.
The track layout, is for trench warfare which the guard do A LOT. if you try crossing trenches the size of an average WWI trench with a modern MBT it fails.
This is because those WW1 heavy tanks that the Russ is designed after were humongously long, the Russ however is rather short. There far more expedient ways to cross big trenches (bridgelayer vehicles, infilling, etc) than to have to deal with big long bus length tanks.
A bigger issue is the fact that there's no suspension on the tank with the way its tracks are
Due to the track layout the sides have to be big and flat, which while a problem, any sloped sides tank in history has done worse than a flat one, either because of the ridiculously extra weight of it creates shot traps that are easier to penetrate than flat armour.
With respect to the sides of a Russ, the issue with sloped sides isn't weight or shot traps, its reduction of internal volume. On the Russ, the lack of sloping side armor isnt the issue in and of itself, most tanks have relatively flat sides, it's that the Russ tank has great big tall sides making it a huge flat target.
The turret is not actually that small because it uses an auto loader and all autoloader tanks have got tiny turrets in comparison to manual, why the imperial navy doesn't use autoloaders I will never know. Also the tank commander has all the equipment he needs to work effectively, and the smaller the turret the smaller the target.
I have never heard of a Russ tank described with an autoloader off the top of my head, but multiple Imperial Armour and fluff books have talked about Russ tank loaders as normal crew.
More to the point however the turret is too small to fit *anyone*, the gun breach occupies most of the hatch (even in cutaway drawings) and has no room for other vital tank equipment much less ammo and loader/gunner/commander.
Sponsoons are actually very good in trench warfare with in WWI sponsoon armed tanks doing better than turreted tanks, but with the leman russ sometimes being used in wide open fields, and cities it does need a turret.
In reality, sadly, they're not so good , there is a reason sponson guns got dumped on real tanks. They're a huge structural weakness, they have extremely limited arcs of fire, it's basically impossible to hit anything from them, and they make the vehicle bulkier and heavier. They look cool, but are far more trouble than they are worth.
Trench warfare is also only a small part of what the IG does.
And a final thing is people think that its top heavy, but it can actually go up to an angle of 75 degrees tilted to the side, which is actually very impressive, real life, or at least the models can, but the actuall tank would have more weight lower down, so even better than the model.
Unfortunately we have no idea of weight distribution of an actual Russ nor its torque potential or a number of other things, what the plastic box and what a real vehicle would do are very different things.
Much like the Chainsword or Bolter, the Leman Russ tank was designed to fit an aesthetic concept, not so much reflect reality.
Of note, the Leman Russ is drawn with an internal vertical coil-spring suspension in the Imperial Armor books. How it works with the external armor running along the ground, good question, I don't know, but supposedly there's also a suspension in there. Also, it's supposedly about 60 tons, which is pretty heavy.
In addition, it's worth observation that most modern tanks don't have angled side armor. It doesn't actually have a significant enough benefit, and comes with a severe volumetric penalty.
None of mine are modeled with sponsons.
The turret layout is what generally puzzles me most, since the breech clearly intersects with the commander's legs.
Frazzled wrote: Flatten the model, flatten the turret, put on wider tracks, put on a track suspension, move the hatches to more realistic positions for the commander et all, make the side sponsons go away or smaller, remote operated weaponry, then you have a better design.
But why?
Modern tanks are flattened and angled because biggest threat for them is kinetic weapons. If the threat was, say, energy weapons of the M42, straight, big plate might withstand impacts better and disperse it over larger surfaces. Ignoring the context the tank is supposed to fight in and just copy-pasting current tank look because it's "realistic" is kind of wrong. Also, the more room inside, the larger comfort for the crew and the more supplies they can carry. In fact, I'd say it's too small in places.
It needs to be longer and wider frankly. It has no room for shells or crew given the barrel. Again, compare it to the B1. The B1's proportions are longer but just as tall and narrow. This allows and actual engine and stowage.
To show a suspension, one could cut the bottom 18 inches off the chassis. I did that with my chimeras to show the bottom half of the wheels. Put a FW Vanquisher turret on it and it looks more proportioned. Frankly, I love the look of a Vanquisher turret on a chimera.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Of note, the Leman Russ is drawn with an internal vertical coil-spring suspension in the Imperial Armor books. How it works with the external armor running along the ground, good question, I don't know, but supposedly there's also a suspension in there.
In addition, it's worth observation that most modern tanks don't have angled side armor. It doesn't actually have a significant enough benefit, and comes with a severe volumetric penalty.
The turret layout is what generally puzzles me most, since the breech clearly intersects with the commander's legs.
This is 40K. They just cut those off and hardwire the commander into the vehicle.
Edit: Here is an interesting schematic. Everything almost fits if the battlecannon is scaled down to about 35% its size. Thats how I would think of it.
Irbis wrote: Uh, what? You can see elements of suspension right there on the sides (plus, there are compromises in detail shown especially on the side of model that is rarely looked at), it has larger clearance than say Abrams, it's just not obvious due to the proportions, and I can name at least half a dozen tanks with similar track system that drove just fine. Maybe it wouldn't be the fastest thing ever, but it's silly to call historical, proven examples that actually won several wars to be wrong.
It may have something that looks vaguely like a suspension detail, but the tracks have no room to move. Seriously, just look at the model. If you try to move the track upward even a tiny amount it pushes up into the hull and the sides of the armor plate next to the tracks touch the ground. Seriously, just look at the model and compare it to, say, a Rhino. Or even compare it to a Macharius, where the tracks have the same lack of vertical room to move but are at least wider than the adjacent hull so that if the tracks sink downward an inch into soft ground the tank is still only touching the ground with its tracks. It is barely possible for a LRBT to move, and only on a perfectly flat hard surface.
Nope, not at all. The LRBT has maybe an inch of ground clearance at most. Trying to drive one would look like one of those videos where someone in a customized car with as little ground clearance as possible can't even get over a speed bump in a parking lot. And god help you if you get into any soft ground...
but if you look at WWI tanks just like the leman Russ you would say it has no suspension, but they do, but because they are a TRENCH WARFARE tank its essentially a field of mud and so suspension, isn't needed.
First of all, WWI tanks didn't lack a suspension because it was OMG TRENCH WARFARE, they just hadn't designed a proper system yet. Second, a LRBT would be instantly immobilized in mud because of its poor track design, so that's hardly a defense. Finally, only an idiot designs a tank for a single specialized role like that when LRBTs (like the IG in general) are used for way more than just trench warfare.
I like the Stug-Russ, May make one for myself (and doesn’t the Stug use a Panzer III hull anyway?).
If the raised armor skirt on the sides were “floating” (.i.e, hinged so they could raise and lower as the tank trundled on) it’d make more sense as having a concealed suspension.
I have an old 2E model of the Russ that actually models the wheels that exist hidden behind the treads. Pain to build, but it gave the impression it had a suspension.
Stormonu wrote: I like the Stug-Russ, May make one for myself (and doesn’t the Stug use a Panzer III hull anyway?).
If the raised armor skirt on the sides were “floating” (.i.e, hinged so they could raise and lower as the tank trundled on) it’d make more sense as having a concealed suspension.
I have an old 2E model of the Russ that actually models the wheels that exist hidden behind the treads. Pain to build, but it gave the impression it had a suspension.
Stormonu wrote: The Vanquisher and Battle Cannon would have to have an unusual breech and no recoil to keep from castrating the commander in the cupola.
It’s probably also not a very fast tank, as it appears to lack any visible suspension- unless it has some sort of floating, retractable suspension that is only engaged when moving cross-county.
It’s definately a different beast from our modern designs, and whether it works or not in the real world, I don’t care. It’s a damn sexy model.
I think it uses bogie suspension.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.
Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.
Flinty wrote: The B1 turret may look to be a similar proportion to the Russ turret, but the B1 gun is super tiny by comparison and hence there is room for a person up there too.
Yes, the LR's battlecannon is absurdly large, like storm drain sized. In the real world B1 they had to put the 75mm in the hull. I think the turret had a 37.5mm but I could be wrong.
Slowroll wrote: Assuming a Cadian is 6 feet tall, the bore of the Battle Cannon is around 12". Surely it could not fire a conventional cannon shell of that size. I don't really read the novels, is it supposed to be firing rockets or something?
Nope, not at all. The LRBT has maybe an inch of ground clearance at most. Trying to drive one would look like one of those videos where someone in a customized car with as little ground clearance as possible can't even get over a speed bump in a parking lot. And god help you if you get into any soft ground...
but if you look at WWI tanks just like the leman Russ you would say it has no suspension, but they do, but because they are a TRENCH WARFARE tank its essentially a field of mud and so suspension, isn't needed.
First of all, WWI tanks didn't lack a suspension because it was OMG TRENCH WARFARE, they just hadn't designed a proper system yet. Second, a LRBT would be instantly immobilized in mud because of its poor track design, so that's hardly a defense. Finally, only an idiot designs a tank for a single specialized role like that when LRBTs (like the IG in general) are used for way more than just trench warfare.
Firstly the model has 1/2 inch of ground clearance before being scaled up to real life, and if you could actually read I never said WWI tanks have no suspension I said that you can't see it.
Maybe the degree of Heroic scaling is leading to a distortion of what the Leman Russ is actually like. If we de-heroic it enough we will probably find it has suspension and a more reasonably sized gun.
The sponsons could be a developed to aid it in trench warfare. As tank turrets have difficulty shooting downwards. When the tank was first developed (IRL) they did consider giving it a turret, but it would make it too top heavy and the difficulty of shooting into trenches. That is why they went with sponsons, and the MG one was actually more useful.
When the Leman Russ was originally designed every design feature there must be reason for or what did the STC design it for.
Tygre wrote: Maybe the degree of Heroic scaling is leading to a distortion of what the Leman Russ is actually like. If we de-heroic it enough we will probably find it has suspension and a more reasonably sized gun.
The sponsons could be a developed to aid it in trench warfare. As tank turrets have difficulty shooting downwards. When the tank was first developed (IRL) they did consider giving it a turret, but it would make it too top heavy and the difficulty of shooting into trenches. That is why they went with sponsons, and the MG one was actually more useful.
When the Leman Russ was originally designed every design feature there must be reason for or what did the STC design it for.
Indeed, the image I had was a more realistic tube. If its a 122mm its equivalent to this:
As for the sponsons, historically you always had the option of a nonsponson tank.
I like the sponsons, they add character. Having them is simply a different combat doctrine than we use. I could definately see the reasoning on strapping more guns onto a tank, especially if you have the space and engine power for it.
deotrims 16th wrote: Firstly the model has 1/2 inch of ground clearance before being scaled up to real life, and if you could actually read I never said WWI tanks have no suspension I said that you can't see it.
I have a LRBT model on my desk right now and just measured it. The model has just over 1mm of ground clearance, so I have no idea where you're getting half an inch from.
deotrims 16th wrote: Firstly the model has 1/2 inch of ground clearance before being scaled up to real life, and if you could actually read I never said WWI tanks have no suspension I said that you can't see it.
I have a LRBT model on my desk right now and just measured it. The model has just over 1mm of ground clearance, so I have no idea where you're getting half an inch from.
So one of you is talking about the space from the belly and down, while another is talking about the space from the edge of those side skirts and down. now please don't take up more forum space with one of you telling the other how he misunderstands he problem completely and instead get to some real points.
When people look at the Leman Russ they take the model as sacrosanct in assessing it as a tank. In doing this the problems of Heroic scale creep in... the cannon, if the Leman Russ model's scale was real world accurate, that cannon is the size of a Battleship's. What few numbers there are floating around on the Leman Russ they seem to have been lifted from an Abrams tank and without making any adjustments. Just going by other weapons in the setting, the Battlecannon doesn't even have to be as big as it is on the model.
To that end I think we should treat the cannon as half the size as it is on the model.
The biggest issue with the Leman Russ, more than its antiquated track assemblies is its height. Modern battle tanks are no where near as tall as the Leman Russ. Its height would make its mass such a liability; with the very real issues of tipping when it tries to clear a trench. A Leman Russ tank is 15ft+ tall, a modern battle tank is less than 8ft. Overall mass doesn't change this issue, heavier or lighter, its a weight distribution problem. It wouldn't just sink in the mud the ground pressure could sink it into the concrete (hyperbole). For as armored and as heavy as the Leman Russ its turret, top armor and rear armor would need to be really thin, for it not to have issues.
Most people will liken the Leman Russ to British Mark 1 tank but with a turret. It is however a mishmash that tries to capture the spirit of early tanks and not analogous to any single tank. I think the Leman Russ in terms of how its operated is more in line with a Char B1 and I think with very minor tweeks the Leman Russ design can be as viable a tank design.
For example, with how the tracks are designed, they are narrower to than the side assemblies. Maybe they're just road wheels. If the tracks were instead as wide as the side assembly riding ending up at an offset on just over the the current tracks a hidden suspension with minimal clearance around the side panels... it contributes to a believable functionality. The Char B1 despite large side panels had more issues with fuel than mobility. Rough ride, but it didn't move that fast so clearance for suspension wasn't as demanding.
The Leman Russ needs to be shortened from 15ft to between 9ft and 10ft. Believe it or not, contributing to the height issues is the excessive ground clearance beneath its main hull, scaling to almost 2 ft more ground clearance than an Abrams. The drive sprocket at the rear should be elevated... unless not being able to easily back up is intentional.
I generally feel the Leman Russ has a profile similar to an M4 Sherman, actually, more than a CharB1
The turret is more central, and it's got the same sort of shape with large flat sides, a high profile, an sloped glacis and back-down sloped engine bay. The turret of the Leman Russ is also similar in lines to the late variant Sherman turret, though it's more angular where the sherman has more rounded edges.
The Char B1 has a very forward turret, which is also differently shaped.
Spoiler:
I unfortunately have neither a 1:56 scale Sherman nor any model of a Char B1 to put it up with, but I do have a 1:100 [Flames of War] Sherman. The lines are very aesthetically similar, and the Leman Russ seems generally Sherman-inspired in lore as well. The only thing it's really got going with the B1 is all-around exposed tracks, but a lot of tanks had all-around tracks during the war [most that did just had it covered].
The turret is not actually that small because it uses an auto loader and all autoloader tanks have got tiny turrets in comparison to manual, why the imperial navy doesn't use autoloaders I will never know. Also the tank commander has all the equipment he needs to work effectively, and the smaller the turret the smaller the target.
I have never heard of a Russ tank described with an autoloader off the top of my head, but multiple Imperial Armour and fluff books have talked about Russ tank loaders as normal crew.
More to the point however the turret is too small to fit *anyone*, the gun breach occupies most of the hatch (even in cutaway drawings) and has no room for other vital tank equipment much less ammo and loader/gunner/commander.
In Honour Guard, I believe the tanks had auto-loaders or at least loader assist when they attacked the last city before moving on to the mountains, but it has been a long time since I read it.
Sherman tank schematic. There are some similarities to the schematic earlier for the LR. Spoiled for size.
Spoiler:
EDIT: looking at that, other than being a whiz bang easy to replace, why the heck did they run the transmission to the front like that? They could have dropped two feet off that puppy.
torblind wrote: So one of you is talking about the space from the belly and down, while another is talking about the space from the edge of those side skirts and down. now please don't take up more forum space with one of you telling the other how he misunderstands he problem completely and instead get to some real points.
Correct. One of us is talking about ground clearance, the distance between the tracks and the lowest part of the body that will be the first thing to scrape the ground, one of us is talking about some random distance like measuring from the hull gun to the top of the turret and calling it "ground clearance". And it's 100% a real point. When you measure the actual ground clearance on a LRBT it's effectively nonexistent and the LRBT would be immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: We can't help it if you built your model wrong, Peregrine.
deotrims 16th wrote: Firstly the model has 1/2 inch of ground clearance before being scaled up to real life, and if you could actually read I never said WWI tanks have no suspension I said that you can't see it.
I have a LRBT model on my desk right now and just measured it. The model has just over 1mm of ground clearance, so I have no idea where you're getting half an inch from.
Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.
You are both right.
If one is looking at clearance from the bottom of the main body hull then there is substantial clearance, and more than current US / British tanks.
However, if judging clearance from the side portion of the hull, then like the B1 there is almost no clearance.
deotrims 16th wrote: Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.
That's because most tanks are sensibly designed and don't have giant metal plates extending to an inch above ground level. The tracks are wider than the section of the tank enclosing the wheels/suspension/etc, such that no part of that side area can touch the ground. If you imagine the tank sinking straight down into mud the first non-track surface that will touch the mud is the bottom of the main hull, a significant distance from the tracks. If you do the same with the LRBT you will find that, because the tracks are narrower than side sections, even the slightest downward movement into the mud results in the side armor plates touching the ground. Yes, it's stupid, because just like you GW doesn't understand how tanks work.
deotrims 16th wrote: Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.
That's because most tanks are sensibly designed and don't have giant metal plates extending to an inch above ground level. The tracks are wider than the section of the tank enclosing the wheels/suspension/etc, such that no part of that side area can touch the ground. If you imagine the tank sinking straight down into mud the first non-track surface that will touch the mud is the bottom of the main hull, a significant distance from the tracks. If you do the same with the LRBT you will find that, because the tracks are narrower than side sections, even the slightest downward movement into the mud results in the side armor plates touching the ground. Yes, it's stupid, because just like you GW doesn't understand how tanks work.
Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said. Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.
Keep in mind that the Leman Russ and most of the Forgeworld line were designed by a lot of British guys who had been in the service or were acquainted with it in some regard. These tanks are just comical "love letters" to various historical elements of tanks they thought would look cool.
Rule of cool presides over most design decisions (particularly the 350mm main gun which is so large they couldn't even store an actual shell for it inside the tank...)
There are some nice nods to British armored warfare in 40K (the Forgeworld Russ which ranges its targets with the co-axial heavy stubber for instance, a prominent feature of the Chieftain/Challenger?) You don't really need to over-analyze this stuff.
Frazzled wrote: You are both right.
If one is looking at clearance from the bottom of the main body hull then there is substantial clearance, and more than current US / British tanks.
However, if judging clearance from the side portion of the hull, then like the B1 there is almost no clearance.
Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.
deotrims 16th wrote: Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.
That's because most tanks are sensibly designed and don't have giant metal plates extending to an inch above ground level. The tracks are wider than the section of the tank enclosing the wheels/suspension/etc, such that no part of that side area can touch the ground. If you imagine the tank sinking straight down into mud the first non-track surface that will touch the mud is the bottom of the main hull, a significant distance from the tracks. If you do the same with the LRBT you will find that, because the tracks are narrower than side sections, even the slightest downward movement into the mud results in the side armor plates touching the ground. Yes, it's stupid, because just like you GW doesn't understand how tanks work.
Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said
Yea but not like an LR. An LR is less than a handwidth in height. Even the Challenger II with extended plates has about 18 inches.
I perfectly understand what Peregrine means and it is true that the design would make much more sense if the tracks were wider and would extend over the side armour. Then again, I really don't exactly expect that level of technical plausibility from my 40K models. Personally I modelled the spokes on my LR tanks like 2mm lower than they actually go, so there's a bit more clearance.
deotrims 16th wrote: Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said.
Again, that's because the tracks are wider than the armored skirts and are shielded from scraping the ground. A LRBT has armored skirts that are wider than the tracks and also an inch off the ground. Therefore the distance that a LRBT can sink into soft ground before being immobilized is maybe an inch or two at most, even if the main hull is still above ground at that point.
Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.
IOW, "the LRBT isn't what GW shows, it's this hypothetical LRBT that I imagined that fixes all of the problems of the official design". That's nice if that's your headcanon, but it doesn't have anything to do with real 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
deotrims 16th wrote: Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.
No, ground clearance is measured from the bottom of the tracks to the first point that will hit the ground, wherever that point happens to be. You're measuring the room you have before something hits the ground and the tank gets stuck, so you measure to the first potential threat not some arbitrary point elsewhere on the tank. On a sensibly designed tank it's the main hull, or at least a point on the side well off the ground. On a LRBT it's the side skirts which are an inch off the ground at best. The only reason you see ground clearance consistently measured to the bottom of the hull IRL is that IRL tank designers aren't idiots.
Crimson wrote: I perfectly understand what Peregrine means and it is true that the design would make much more sense if the tracks were wider and would extend over the side armour. Then again, I really don't exactly expect that level of technical plausibility from my 40K models. Personally I modelled the spokes on my LR tanks like 2mm lower than they actually go, so there's a bit more clearance.
I hear you. I didn't do it to my LR's but for my chimeras I cut the bottom portion to show a portion of the wheels. They look rather nice like that.
On the issue of ground clearance and suspension that I was reminded of, assuming I'm remembering correctly, I think Dawn of War 1 addressed this by treating the Russ model as 3 parts, with the hull and each track section being different objects, and showing the side track sections moving independently up and down as a whole package when moving over rough ground. Ill have to replay it to confirm, but at least there was a nod to the issue in that game.
Otherwise yeah, the tracks have like 0 ground clearance.
Vaktathi wrote: On the issue of ground clearance and suspension that I was reminded of, assuming I'm remembering correctly, I think Dawn of War 1 addressed this by treating the Russ model as 3 parts, with the hull and each track section being different objects, and showing the side track sections moving independently up and down as a whole package when moving over rough ground. Ill have to replay it to confirm, but at least there was a nod to the issue in that game.
Otherwise yeah, the tracks have like 0 ground clearance.
This would only partially solve the problem. It would allow for a smoother ride than having no suspension at all, but it wouldn't at all fix the issue of inadequate ground clearance because the issue is the tracks relative to the side section not the tracks relative to the main hull. If the tracks sink down an inch into soft ground then the tank is immobilized even if the center section can bounce independently.
IMO the best solution would be to build a Malcador and proxy it as a LRBT. Still has the same design flaws that keep the "WWI in space" theme, but at least it has non-zero ground clearance and enough space in the turret to hold its gun.
Yea but not like an LR. An LR is less than a handwidth in height. Even the Challenger II with extended plates has about 18 inches.
That's a great example picture - note that the side armour does not extend lower than the hull because if it did then it would reduce ground clearance.
Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.
No. Ground clearance is tracks to whatever structural part will contact the ground first. On a sensibly designed tank that is the underside of the hull. That is not the case on the Russ.
deotrims 16th wrote: Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said.
Again, that's because the tracks are wider than the armored skirts and are shielded from scraping the ground. A LRBT has armored skirts that are wider than the tracks and also an inch off the ground. Therefore the distance that a LRBT can sink into soft ground before being immobilized is maybe an inch or two at most, even if the main hull is still above ground at that point.
Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.
IOW, "the LRBT isn't what GW shows, it's this hypothetical LRBT that I imagined that fixes all of the problems of the official design". That's nice if that's your headcanon, but it doesn't have anything to do with real 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
deotrims 16th wrote: Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.
No, ground clearance is measured from the bottom of the tracks to the first point that will hit the ground, wherever that point happens to be. You're measuring the room you have before something hits the ground and the tank gets stuck, so you measure to the first potential threat not some arbitrary point elsewhere on the tank. On a sensibly designed tank it's the main hull, or at least a point on the side well off the ground. On a LRBT it's the side skirts which are an inch off the ground at best. The only reason you see ground clearance consistently measured to the bottom of the hull IRL is that IRL tank designers aren't idiots.
So firstly look at the Challanger picture above your comment the tracks aren't wider than the skirts otherwise THEY DON'T FIT at the top where the skirt connects to the hull.
Heroic scale is different and I'm not making stats different to heroic scale up, it's all over the place, unless you are saying all real guardsmen heads are about the size of their torso. Literally everyone knows actual things and heroic scale is different apart from you, and there are still big problems even in real scale, just not to the extent of heroic scale.
Also about ground clearance its measured to the point where the threat will cause damage, so because the tracks are out of the question its measured to the hull, not skirts. Also look at the Challanger above the skirts go lower than the main hull, but aren't counted unless you are saying the designers of the toughest to damage tank ever made are idiots. Finally its measured to the hull because that's where you can cause damage that effects the tank, the skirts being chipped won't effect the tank apart from a reduction in armour, but no systems will be damaged.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Please stop trying to make it out like I'm saying that its the best tank every created as well, I have acknowledged the problems, I think the German WWII Panther or British chieftain would be much better tanks while still looking like they belong in 40k and the chieftain is a very mean looking tank as well, so even more benefits.
Yea but not like an LR. An LR is less than a handwidth in height. Even the Challenger II with extended plates has about 18 inches.
That's a great example picture - note that the side armour does not extend lower than the hull because if it did then it would reduce ground clearance.
Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.
No. Ground clearance is tracks to whatever structural part will contact the ground first. On a sensibly designed tank that is the underside of the hull. That is not the case on the Russ.
Actually that is a slightly modded Challenger 2 for heavy fighting as it has an extra layer of Dorchester armour which is 2 times as good as the challenger 1 or modern Abram's Cobham armour and DU depleted Uranium outer casing for extra density to stop high velocity shells , and the skirts do actually go below the hull due to this, but still isn't counted as a reduction in ground clearance, its just not really noticeable, you can tell its modded because the standard has a zigzag bottom to the skirts and the skirt is the thickness of tin foil in comparison to the picture.
deotrims 16th wrote: the skirts being chipped won't effect the tank apart from a reduction in armour, but no systems will be damaged.
...
You are missing the point entirely. The issue with ground clearance on the LRBT is not that the skirts might get damaged, it's that once the tank sinks an inch into soft ground the skirts will be dragging on the ground and the tank will be unable to move. Because the designer of the LRBT is an idiot this is what will happen:
deotrims 16th wrote: Also look at the Challanger above the skirts go lower than the main hull, but aren't counted unless you are saying the designers of the toughest to damage tank ever made are idiots.
No, of course they aren't idiots, because even though the skirts reduce ground clearance a bit the tank still has plenty of clearance before those skirts hit the ground.
Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.
IOW, "the LRBT isn't what GW shows, it's this hypothetical LRBT that I imagined that fixes all of the problems of the official design". That's nice if that's your headcanon, but it doesn't have anything to do with real 40k.
I don't think you can so easily dismiss the fact the model is in an unrealistic scale. Further if we go solely by the model we have to ignore the fact that even as nice as the model is, its not so detailed. Going solely by the models, the human race has devolved into Gorillas with monstrous proportions, driving tanks that are completely empty.
There have been stated, albeit inconsistent numbers for some of the Leman Russ dimensions. I don't think the model overrides that. It has been stated that the cannon is suppose to be 120mm... but the model clearly represents something bigger than that. Given all the places GW's models are inconsistent in scale, its easier to believe the model is inaccurate.
Given the scale and quality of the models many of the details are simply the impression of a detail, rather than anything true to life.
Real life armored vehicles had architchture like the Leman Russ's running gear. The side panels won't cause it to bog down because they caught on the mud.
It was determined that not having a sprung suspension was "not good" because it made the ride far to rough to be safe, and couldn't traverse obstacles as large or as quickly, because of the bump.
However, the part that puzzles me is that, if I remember correctly, the Imperial Armour book featured an official diagram showing the Leman Russ tank as having individually sprung vertical coil spring suspension. How the road wheels travel is beyond me.
As a side note, the Leman Russ does have thought given on how to tension the track. There's a track tensioning device at the front on each side. So does the chimera. That's something I would have totally expected them to completely forget that tanks need. Notably, the Rhino lacks visible track tensioning gear [and probably completely lacks it, given it's architecture].
Also, it has 0 degrees of gun depression. Like it is literally incapable of firing downwards at all, which would be detrimental at it's height. However I can understand this, because as a kid I was frequently irritated by the fact that one of my toy tank guns always drooped downwards because it's trunions weren't tightly fit, so having a block preventing it from depressing is definitely an better aesthetic decision for the model.
Isn't one of the purposes of tracks on a tank to help distribute the weight so it doesn't sink into the mud/loose dirt in the first place? The tank in the above image looks to be driving on mud, yet it isn't sinking below the tracks.
EnTyme wrote: Isn't one of the purposes of tracks on a tank to help distribute the weight so it doesn't sink into the mud/loose dirt in the first place? The tank in the above image looks to be driving on mud, yet it isn't sinking below the tracks.
Yes. It lowers the psi of the vehicle by increasing the surface area of the ground.
Peregrine is absolutely correct, but mud is a bad example. The russ will have more problems with uneven terrain than it will with mud. It would either grind those idiotic side skirts right off or get stuck as soon as it left an absolutely flat road.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Real life armored vehicles had architchture like the Leman Russ's running gear. The side panels won't cause it to bog down because they caught on the mud.
If you'd like to offer an example of that I'll explain why it's different to the Russ.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Real life armored vehicles had architchture like the Leman Russ's running gear. The side panels won't cause it to bog down because they caught on the mud.
If you'd like to offer an example of that I'll explain why it's different to the Russ.
Closest I know of is the Indy tank from last crusade. It's apparently a Mark VII with a turret bolted on. But for some of the scenes, it was under its own motive force. Not moving fast enough to outrun a horse, but it looked decent enough in speed. And it crushes a jeep (assuming that isn't hollywood tricks), so it has some sort of suspension to absorb a bit of a rough ride.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Real life armored vehicles had architchture like the Leman Russ's running gear. The side panels won't cause it to bog down because they caught on the mud.
If you'd like to offer an example of that I'll explain why it's different to the Russ.
Closest I know of is the Indy tank from last crusade. It's apparently a Mark VII with a turret bolted on. But for some of the scenes, it was under its own motive force. Not moving fast enough to outrun a horse, but it looked decent enough in speed. And it crushes a jeep (assuming that isn't hollywood tricks), so it has some sort of suspension to absorb a bit of a rough ride.
Notice that the tracks protrude beyond the side plates so the side plates cannot hit an obstacle and take pressure off the tracks? That's the key difference between the Russ and the designs it's trying it imitate.
See, peeps need to understand the 40k background more.
Is the Leman Russ particularly practical? Probably not.
Are better designs possible? More than likely.
but.....
When fielded in numbers to boggle our minds, does it get the job done with aplomb? Evidentially.
Is it somehow robust enough to baffle and dent most enemy weapons? Evidence suggests yes, so far as the Adeptus Munitorum are concerned.
Is it a pattern easily replicated, in the hundreds of thousands on Forgeworlds which might be half or more a Galaxy apart, making rearming a cinch? Undoubtedly.
It’s the same reason the humble Lasgun is the weapon of choice in the 41st Milennium. It’s simple.. It’s straight forward. It’s robust. You can take any crewman of a previous tank, and give them a new Leman Russ, and they’ll know what to do.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: It looks terrible, the Mars pattern ones from FW look amazing, I only buy them.
I must be missing something, they look the same to me.
Longer hull (the back engine area is extended significantly), better mount for the hull gun, larger turrets that look like they might have enough space to fit the entire gun.
Just adding some fuel for thought given the nature of 40K models. Anyone who has, as an adult, or a child, built a decently detailed Tamiya or otherwise tank kit...will be glad that GW had gone to great efforts to simplify the kits. This is a bonus of the way the Leman Russ tracks are done, the Land Raider etc.
Ever tried assembling full suspension, road wheels and track links on a real tank kit? That is the way of madness.
Actually, very little can be done to fix the Leman Russ tank, to make it look less than a silly toy and more like an actual tank.
Spoiler:
Original
Sorry for the extremely low quality, I have no other means of image editing atm.
Elbows wrote: Just adding some fuel for thought given the nature of 40K models. Anyone who has, as an adult, or a child, built a decently detailed Tamiya or otherwise tank kit...will be glad that GW had gone to great efforts to simplify the kits. This is a bonus of the way the Leman Russ tracks are done, the Land Raider etc.
Ever tried assembling full suspension, road wheels and track links on a real tank kit? That is the way of madness.
Allow me to say that your statement is a matter of opinion and that I disagree with it. To be specific, this sentence.
...will be glad that GW had gone to great efforts to simplify the kits.
When look at the track skirting plates, I like to imagine the model is displayed with its suspension fully depressed, as if it just landed an awesome jump/drop and is pulling the tank equivalent of the super hero landing pose.
Or maybe it has adjustable suspension and is on roadrolling mode.
Or perhaps, again with adjustable suspension, it is able to hunker down for a firefight mode to protect otherwise exposes and vulnerable wheels,track links and suspension components from enemy fire.
It probably just raises itself up when it is moving through terrain where the extra height and absorption is needed.
Stormonu wrote: An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.
Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.
Negative - our abrams armor core rolled up and destroyed about 2000 Iraqi tanks n about 6 hours in desert storm. We lost like 3 tanks in the engagement - 2 to friendly fire and 1 to scuttling. It was actually the first time the abrams had seen combat and were going up against entrenched Iraqi veterans. It really does to show how important technological advance is in modern warfare.
Sherman was a great tank but utterly worthless vs tigers. I believe in order to get a kill it had to be shooting side flat profile at 500 feet or less and even more with angling and was very unlikely to penetrate anywhere at any range on the front profile. A tiger could kill a sherman at 8000 feet at any angle. The sherman tankers must have feared an encounter with a tiger almost as much as tiger tankers feared our airforce.
Depends on the Sherman. A basic 75mm sherman could pierce a tiger's front armor at 500 yards (the tiger could do the same a closer to a 1000). A firefly, 76mm, or easy eight however had the same kill range capability against a tiger that a tiger had against them.
Armor wise, the Sherman's 2" of sloped armor gave it nearly the same protection as the tiger's 4" of flat armor. (For the Sherman front only).
In North Africa, the Germans and Italians hated fighting shermans, because their tanks had difficulty peircing a Sherman's (and Lee's) armor, and because the sherman's 75mm gun could one shot a Panther or canoe a Panzer 4 or smaller.
Edit: this gentleman goes into detail about many of the sherman myths. It's a long watch, but entertaining if you like the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
Unless you were in a Sherman Firefly (or even a Sherman 76mm) - then Tigers were in trouble. Wittman lost his whole force in one go to Sherman Fireflies (we can argue about who did it elsewhere). Side bar...
The Leman Russ is a wonderfully ridiculous design. I have several and I love them. While it fails as a tank design for the real world (that turret - OMG), it succeeds at building the setting for 40K. Combining a WW1 Mark IV with a Grant along with Lascannons and Sponson Multi-Meltas establishes that you are in a strange backwards/forwards technological setting. Just don't think about what is going on in the turret (if they put a laser there I could buy it) and don't mind the bizarro sides/tracks design. If they updated it to be realistic (aka possible for internal layout) I might actually be sad...
If I want to play a game with real tanks I can play Flames of War, Team Yankee or Bolt Action.
Now put yourself in the commander's seat when the cannon fires, or stand in the hatch. We have cages and screens in our tanks for a reason. We like our appendages.
I do love cut-aways, and that Leman Russ mock-up is way above my own modeling skills!
The Baneblade is a tank I can get behind, and that cut-away is also awesome. Brings out the kid in me. The Russians tried out "land battleships" with multiple turrets in the 1930s. The T35 was a monster for its time, weighing in at 45 tonnes. It had a main turret with a 76mm gun (albeit a short one) and four other turrets on the hull. Two of those turrets had 45mm guns and the other two had machineguns. It had a crew of 11! It must have been a nightmare to crew command, and multiple turrets fell out favour. Still, I see a little bit of the "land battleship" in the Baneblade, and it works wonderfully for the Imperium setting.
Mmmpi wrote: Depends on the Sherman. A basic 75mm sherman could pierce a tiger's front armor at 500 yards (the tiger could do the same a closer to a 1000). A firefly, 76mm, or easy eight however had the same kill range capability against a tiger that a tiger had against them.
Armor wise, the Sherman's 2" of sloped armor gave it nearly the same protection as the tiger's 4" of flat armor. (For the Sherman front only).
In North Africa, the Germans and Italians hated fighting shermans, because their tanks had difficulty peircing a Sherman's (and Lee's) armor, and because the sherman's 75mm gun could one shot a Panther or canoe a Panzer 4 or smaller.
Edit: this gentleman goes into detail about many of the sherman myths. It's a long watch, but entertaining if you like the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
Will watch for sure. From my understanding the Firefly was quite rare and only fielded in great number by the Brits. US forces relied on artillery and air support to bring down Tigers. There really weren't a lot of tigers in germany at this point in the war so the horror stories are limited.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Unless you were in a Sherman Firefly (or even a Sherman 76mm) - then Tigers were in trouble. Wittman lost his whole force in one go to Sherman Fireflies (we can argue about who did it elsewhere). Side bar...
The Leman Russ is a wonderfully ridiculous design. I have several and I love them. While it fails as a tank design for the real world (that turret - OMG), it succeeds at building the setting for 40K. Combining a WW1 Mark IV with a Grant along with Lascannons and Sponson Multi-Meltas establishes that you are in a strange backwards/forwards technological setting. Just don't think about what is going on in the turret (if they put a laser there I could buy it) and don't mind the bizarro sides/tracks design. If they updated it to be realistic (aka possible for internal layout) I might actually be sad...
If I want to play a game with real tanks I can play Flames of War, Team Yankee or Bolt Action.
Will watch for sure. From my understanding the Firefly was quite rare and only fielded in great number by the Brits. US forces relied on artillery and air support to bring down Tigers. There really weren't a lot of tigers in germany at this point in the war so the horror stories are limited.
The USA also fielded the M10 3" GMC that could wreck Tigers.
The 75mm Sherman wasn't entirely adequately armed, but it was killing every German tank it was asked to in North Africa and Italy [which included Tigers], and we delayed deploying the 76mm Shermans because the need wasn't felt when all of the tanks that actually comprised the core of the German armored force [Pzkpfw III and IV] were easily inferior.
Of some note, the Tiger is a heavy tank and the Sherman is a medium tank. It's supposed to be more threatening to medium tanks than they are to it. While the Americans didn't field an equivalent heavy tank, the Soviet heavies had a similar effect on their contemporary German counterparts. Also, I think it's kind of unfair to compare the Tiger 1 [Pzkpfw VI Ausf. H/E] to the later US 76mm Shermans and the M36 90mm GMC, since the Tiger 1 was introduced in fall '42, contemporary with the 75mm M4's. The Tiger 2 made it's debut in summer '44, and while the Tiger 1 served through to the end of the war, it's past it's prime by the time the M36 and M4 (76) made their debut [in late '44]. While there were 76mm Shermans ready in 1943, they were rejected by the Armored Board due to not being sufficiently reliable and the 75mm Shermans being considered entirely adequate. Testing [read: putting a captured Tiger in the field and shooting at it] reinforced the idea that more powerful guns weren't immediately required.
It's also worth mention that tankers commonly misidentified Panzer IV Ausf. H's as Tigers.
As for the Firefly, it was only fielded by the British because we tested it and didn't like it. The British really liked their 17pdr gun, but we had our own 90mm AT gun on the way and the Firefly had a bunch of ergonomic problems that made it less efficient to operate and generally poorer than our also upcoming 76mm Shermans.
Will watch for sure. From my understanding the Firefly was quite rare and only fielded in great number by the Brits. US forces relied on artillery and air support to bring down Tigers. There really weren't a lot of tigers in germany at this point in the war so the horror stories are limited.
It mostly had to do with how the build up of forces and the manufacturing of materiel was handled. It was mostly a case of delegating. While the US manufacturing was focused on higher volume massed production, many of Britain's factories were organized to produce the special need vehicles and variants. So they ended up having a good number of those available to their forces.
Good lord there is allot of nonsense being thrown around here and some really weak and dodgy defence of the Russ.
The simple fact is that the design in world is pure garbage.
You can throw around all the defence you want but that is pure fact.
And it's not as if the imperium hasn't got or know of better designs. They practically confirmed they know of tanks like Tigers and Shermans etc in the Guardsmen articles they do.
So they CAN make better.
Aaaaand before we throw in "oh but precious stcstcstc!"
That's gone out the door.
Look at all the garbage being created nowadays. It's no longer an existing factor.
It's poor design and lazy design.
And this whole rubbish of "its comic on purpose"...no...because why does the Predator look like a functional tank next to the same universe russ???
Just grab a bloody churchill and slap some eagles on it.
Boom 100% better.
I'll 2nd Lord Katherine, and add that the US didn't like the 17lb gun in the Sherman because the gun was really too big for the turret. It was hard to load, was cramped for the gunner and commander to work around, and when it fired (reportedly) it would spray burning powder through the vehicle. Enough to remove eyebrows, but not much else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ValentineGames wrote: Good lord there is allot of nonsense being thrown around here and some really weak and dodgy defence of the Russ.
The simple fact is that the design in world is pure garbage.
You can throw around all the defence you want but that is pure fact.
And it's not as if the imperium hasn't got or know of better designs. They practically confirmed they know of tanks like Tigers and Shermans etc in the Guardsmen articles they do.
So they CAN make better.
Aaaaand before we throw in "oh but precious stcstcstc!"
That's gone out the door.
Look at all the garbage being created nowadays. It's no longer an existing factor.
It's poor design and lazy design.
And this whole rubbish of "its comic on purpose"...no...because why does the Predator look like a functional tank next to the same universe russ???
Just grab a bloody churchill and slap some eagles on it.
Boom 100% better.
My personal 'head cannon', is that the tank in universe doesn't have the flaws seen on the model.
ValentineGames wrote: Good lord there is allot of nonsense being thrown around here and some really weak and dodgy defence of the Russ.
The simple fact is that the design in world is pure garbage.
You can throw around all the defence you want but that is pure fact.
And it's not as if the imperium hasn't got or know of better designs. They practically confirmed they know of tanks like Tigers and Shermans etc in the Guardsmen articles they do.
So they CAN make better.
Aaaaand before we throw in "oh but precious stcstcstc!"
That's gone out the door.
Look at all the garbage being created nowadays. It's no longer an existing factor.
It's poor design and lazy design.
And this whole rubbish of "its comic on purpose"...no...because why does the Predator look like a functional tank next to the same universe russ???
Just grab a bloody churchill and slap some eagles on it.
Boom 100% better.
You're completely missing what the design parameters were. They were not 'design a best possible functional tank' they were not even 'design a functional tank' they were 'design a tank that looks cool, but kinda ancient.' And they achieved that.
Also, why Preador looks different, it is because there is intentionally a different design language for these two factions, to make them more distinct. This is art, not engineering.
ValentineGames wrote:Good lord there is allot of nonsense being thrown around here and some really weak and dodgy defence of the Russ.
The simple fact is that the design in world is pure garbage.
You can throw around all the defence you want but that is pure fact.
And it's not as if the imperium hasn't got or know of better designs. They practically confirmed they know of tanks like Tigers and Shermans etc in the Guardsmen articles they do.
So they CAN make better.
Aaaaand before we throw in "oh but precious stcstcstc!"
That's gone out the door.
Look at all the garbage being created nowadays. It's no longer an existing factor.
It's poor design and lazy design.
And this whole rubbish of "its comic on purpose"...no...because why does the Predator look like a functional tank next to the same universe russ???
Just grab a bloody churchill and slap some eagles on it.
Boom 100% better.
Uh huh. Predator, functional tank. Uh huh.
The Predator does not look any more like a functional tank. It's still really tall, it has twinned guns, and it has additional exposed sponson guns.
Okay, I take that back. There's historical precedence for M113-with-a-turret conversions. That said, they didn't wield tank guns, and didn't fight tanks. They were light recon vehicles, and if they were fighting tanks something had gone very wrong.
Mmmpi wrote:I'll 2nd Lord Katherine, and add that the US didn't like the 17lb gun in the Sherman because the gun was really too big for the turret. It was hard to load, was cramped for the gunner and commander to work around, and when it fired (reportedly) it would spray burning powder through the vehicle. Enough to remove eyebrows, but not much else.
The breech was mounted sideways, among other things. It was not a "good tank" in any sense. It was, however, an adequate tank, meeting the combat needs of WWII.
The Predator does not look any more like a functional tank. It's still really tall, it has twinned guns, and it has additional exposed sponson guns.
Functional =/= great. The Predator is not an ideal MBT design, it's more of an IFV with a bigger gun and has some archaic design choices.. But at least it is capable of movement, has enough space to hold the gun in the turret, etc. You wouldn't win a war against good tanks with Predators, but at least they'd be capable of making it to the battlefield and firing their weapons. And maybe that's good enough, and you're ok with an up-gunned IFV because it's still light enough for a Thunderhawk to carry a pair of them and strategic mobility overwhelms virtually every other concern with space marines.
To be fair, a predator doesn't mount tank guns, just a large collection of infantry heavy weapons. It has the same firepower of a minimum sized devastator squad (2x Las cannon, 2x Hvy bolter, strombolter). It basically is an IFV that traded it's transport room for battery and ammo space, and some front plate armor.
As for the Firefly, I agree. It did the job, it just had many flaws that kept it out of service in the US army. The US 76 shermans however, did the same job without the flaws. They were just stuck in England depots because the tank commanders in France didn't think (from past experience) that they'd need them enough to justify the extra logistics work of adding them to their 75mm companies. Hindsight and all that on our part.
They were not 'design a best possible functional tank' they were not even 'design a functional tank' they were 'design a tank that looks cool, but kinda ancient.' .
They were not 'design a best possible functional tank' they were not even 'design a functional tank' they were 'design a tank that looks cool, but kinda ancient.' .
The Predator does not look any more like a functional tank. It's still really tall, it has twinned guns, and it has additional exposed sponson guns.
Functional =/= great. The Predator is not an ideal MBT design, it's more of an IFV with a bigger gun and has some archaic design choices.. But at least it is capable of movement, has enough space to hold the gun in the turret, etc. You wouldn't win a war against good tanks with Predators, but at least they'd be capable of making it to the battlefield and firing their weapons. And maybe that's good enough, and you're ok with an up-gunned IFV because it's still light enough for a Thunderhawk to carry a pair of them and strategic mobility overwhelms virtually every other concern with space marines.
Go back tot he original Rogue trader kit and rules it still had a transport capacity.
They were not 'design a best possible functional tank' they were not even 'design a functional tank' they were 'design a tank that looks cool, but kinda ancient.' .
Well they botched that up then didn't they.
Definitely not.
It has all the right visual cues, taking design and aesthetic elements from early fighting vehicles.
Elbows wrote: Careful now Katherine, remember this is the internet where people view their opinions as facts. If you argue otherwise you're a "hater" or a "troll".
ValentineGames doesn't like the styling, so it's objectively bad.
As apposed to the other side of the coin am I right?
Oh wait...it's fine for them.
My eyes could not roll harder at the hypocrisy.
Elbows wrote: Careful now Katherine, remember this is the internet where people view their opinions as facts. If you argue otherwise you're a "hater" or a "troll".
ValentineGames doesn't like the styling, so it's objectively bad.
As apposed to the other side of the coin am I right?
Oh wait...it's fine for them.
My eyes could not roll harder at the hypocrisy.
Stormonu wrote: An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.
Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.
Negative - our abrams armor core rolled up and destroyed about 2000 Iraqi tanks n about 6 hours in desert storm. We lost like 3 tanks in the engagement - 2 to friendly fire and 1 to scuttling. It was actually the first time the abrams had seen combat and were going up against entrenched Iraqi veterans. It really does to show how important technological advance is in modern warfare.
73 easting - the main battle - was 160 tanks killed to 0 (there was an APC casualty). The main advantages weren't actually the tanks, though, but the thermal sights, datalink comms and GPS, all of which were used in a night engagement for the first time - and those systems do exist on some patterns of leman russ
Stormonu wrote: An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.
Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.
Negative - our abrams armor core rolled up and destroyed about 2000 Iraqi tanks n about 6 hours in desert storm. We lost like 3 tanks in the engagement - 2 to friendly fire and 1 to scuttling. It was actually the first time the abrams had seen combat and were going up against entrenched Iraqi veterans. It really does to show how important technological advance is in modern warfare.
73 easting - the main battle - was 160 tanks killed to 0 (there was an APC casualty). The main advantages weren't actually the tanks, though, but the thermal sights, datalink comms and GPS, all of which were used in a night engagement for the first time - and those systems do exist on some patterns of leman russ
Its amazing how a single generation in design can affect things so much. Another huge advantage was the powered traverse. The T-72's at 73 Easting had manual traverses. I am not sure if the Leman Russes turret has powered traverse or manual.
aka_mythos wrote: How about we turn this around... What modern battle tank do all of you think feels most "grim dark"?
the Bradley IFV.
So a Razorback with an autocannon?
All the latest tanks actually look very similar to each other. I suspect most people, who are not tank enthusiasts, cannot tell the difference between Abrams, Challengers and Leopards. In the Gulf War (Operation Enduring Freedom) reporters were calling a column of tanks on video Abrams; they were British and Challengers. For Grim Dark I would lean toward Russian designs. It would fit with the Chimeras being very similar to the BMPs.
aka_mythos wrote: How about we turn this around... What modern battle tank do all of you think feels most "grim dark"?
Modern tank is a hard call. Most of them feel more sleek and futuristic in their lines.
Maybe a BMPT Terminator. Doesn't quite capture the GrimDark feel, though.
That said, if you want a mean joke, the Bradley as mentioned above is a good pick! At least the movie Pentagon Wars was funny [though to be fair, the Bradley has done well in its service]
I back Mmmpi's opinion. I think the closest thing to grimdark MBT is an M1 Abrams with a mine plow, and only because of the mine plow.
Maybe the Russian Terminator or German Gepard Flakpanzer is getting close, but that's not an MBT.
If I had to call any tank the most grimdark, I'd give my vote to the Voldemort of armored vehicles, the PzKpfw VI. Just mentioning its name made people shiver and fear, seconded by nothing else than Churchill Crocodile.
To really make a grimdark tank, take the Tiger, give it the Flak 30/38 in sponsons and a low-angle auxiliary nebelwerfer launcher. BAM! Ready for 40k.
The ground clearance is better than modern MBT's. but yes the suspension is a BIG problem, but if you look at WWI tanks just like the leman Russ you would say it has no suspension, but they do, but because they are a TRENCH WARFARE tank its essentially a field of mud and so suspension, isn't needed.
I'm guessing you've never seen a WW1 battlefield. Suspension is definitely needed.
Hawky wrote: I back Mmmpi's opinion. I think the closest thing to grimdark MBT is an M1 Abrams with a mine plow, and only because of the mine plow.
Maybe the Russian Terminator or German Gepard Flakpanzer is getting close, but that's not an MBT.
If I had to call any tank the most grimdark, I'd give my vote to the Voldemort of armored vehicles, the PzKpfw VI. Just mentioning its name made people shiver and fear, seconded by nothing else than Churchill Crocodile.
To really make a grimdark tank, take the Tiger, give it the Flak 30/38 in sponsons and a low-angle auxiliary nebelwerfer launcher. BAM! Ready for 40k.
Actually...
The most grimdark WW2 tank would be a sturmtiger.
End of story.
That or maybee a Pzbfw IV with sponsons.
Or, stuff like the independent / the russian landships.
Probably biased because i absolutely Adore the Malcador Defender, any malcador.
Some pictures of my Astra Militarum from a recent Grand Tournament (won 2nd overall) and of my Leman Russ modifications. The turret and cannon have been done simple improvements and they enhance the overall aesthetic a lot.
Some pictures of my Astra Militarum from a recent Grand Tournament (won 2nd overall) and of my Leman Russ modifications. The turret and cannon have been done simple improvements and they enhance the overall aesthetic a lot.
They're cool, and very well done, but they enhance the 'doesn't work' (but still cool) part of the look. How do they load the shells?
I dealt with the Russ' silly design in my own way.
Spoiler:
Hull is from an already existing and well known vehicle. The turret has been cut in half and widened in about 10mm, and the hatch has been moved as well, so it does not collide with the cannon breach. In fact, the commander would have the breach in the lower right quadrant of his field of vision, while looking straight forward.
On that note, I recently picked up a “world war toons” Panther tank to represent a Leman Russ tank for my GSC. I could see that entire world war toon line being used to make more “realistic” Imperial tanks while still looking sufficiently grim Dark.
, there is a reason sponson guns got dumped on real tanks. They're a huge structural weakness, they have extremely limited arcs of fire, it's basically impossible to hit anything from them, and they make the vehicle bulkier and heavier. They look cool, but are far more trouble than they are worth.
