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.

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

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

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

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

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

Agamemnon2 wrote:

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

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

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

aka_mythos wrote:

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

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

Trench Crossing
Specifically developed during World War I.
History

(of the tank, and some of trench crossing)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ph34r wrote:

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

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

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

I thought they used fascines to overcome those problems.

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

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

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

I assembled an exterminator but sort of regretting it atm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IG are about numbers and expendability

The Armoured Company would like a word with you.

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

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

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

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

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

____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Thanks Ag.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

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


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


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

aka_mythos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CK

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

^ QFT.