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

When I say Mk1 we mean a British WWI tank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My 1p..

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

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

That would give dimensions of

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

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


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

ph34r wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valkyrie isn't an Apcalypse model.

Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

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

Agamemnon2 wrote:

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

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

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

ph34r wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ the tracks length / height etc etc

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

*omg typo and leaving out words ><

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone have some interesting turret concepts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A standard Russ is only 4.5" long.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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