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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laodamia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on what you mean by "best tank"


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

I bring back my Sherman tank example.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Lasguns are based off of flashlight STCs. :p

riplikash wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I answered you back on page 2.

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

So if i were to theorize...

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

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

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


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

I bring back my Sherman tank example.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

riplikash wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

Laodamia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

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

First off, watch your language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WW1 emhar mark 4...




...with a turret.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im confused.

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

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

There is a difference guys.