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.

ShumaGorath wrote: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.

The old Land Raider had an interior cut away picture that showed exactly that. emote operated by a marine riding inside the track housing.

ShumaGorath wrote:Also it wouldn't matter much, the russ doesn't have much ground clearance

The leman Russ has plenty of ground clearance. Stick an unbased guardsmen next the tank. The clearance comes upto his knee, about 1 3/4 feet. An Abrams Tank has just over a 1 1/2feet of clearance. I'm not saying GW's scaling is perfect but if you think its too bad to make this comparison, ground clearance should be the least of your worries.

ShumaGorath wrote: ...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.

You're making assumptions that it'd a function as a single point of contact as opposed to multi-degree of freedom harmonic oscillator with a computer controlled damper.

I don't believe it works this way but his speculation is as abstract as yours. This is science fiction and worse ideas than that have come out of science fiction. No need to criticize.

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

My point is its only bad if you make the assumption that it functions identically to a tank from the WWI era.

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

How articulate... WWI tanks had intelligence? Then how can they be stupid? Non-functional? Then how did they drive around firing cannons and transporting troops? Low tech, only by comparison of today. Technology is relative, to a cave man it'd be divine. A "moving box of metal," how is that different from today? We use better materials and better designs, but they're still basically metal boxes moving man and weapon around the battlefield.

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

No, they were a natural technological progression to what came before them.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Unsuccessful designs from a period of warfare where the concepts of mechanized battle were still new.

But they were successful. If they hadn't been as successful as they were they wouldn't have forced an arms race. The tactics were more unsuccessful then the vehicles.

ShumaGorath wrote:
There's a reason the german blitz didn't have toy tonka tanks with giant wide sponsons

Mostly it was due to tactical developments. Germans at the start favored lighter and faster tanks, which by late war were under armed and under armored. They also broke up the purpose of vehicles, rather than having a single vehicle fight anti-vehicle and anti-personnel they had several specialized vehicles. That concept is a bit counterpoint to the concept of a main battle tank.

ShumaGorath wrote:stupid retractable ball mounts.

Yes because insulting everyone else's ideas are easier when you have none of your own. Once again your articulation amazes me.
Ball mounts have a higher degree of freedom and ability to quickly aim, a weakness of the sponson. Combined with a remote gunnery system and it would reduce the space needed for the gun. The retractability allows it to be stowed for when the vehicle must quickly maneuver or be transported. That to me solves all the problems of sponsons. So if you can have the added weapons, wouldn't you want them?

ShumaGorath wrote:Because those things don't work in mechanized warfare and have no realistic use.

Yes obviously they didn't make it to modern times, but that was due to technological limitations, that prevented them from solving the short comings of those systems.

ShumaGorath wrote: 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... They are human, they should have human looking tanks.

It has everything to do technology. If you took modern concepts of tanks back to WWI, you couldn't build something that resembles a modern tank. I'm sure the Imperiums engin(s)eers have the same problem. In WWI, they considered mounting guns in turrets, the problem was they could not build chassis strong enough to support the added weight to the roof until late into the war. Even when that problem was solved low profile turrets didn't come around till the 70's because the technology wasn't their to make equipment compact enough to compact the turret.
WWI tanks were human tanks.

The deviation from basic principles is partially whats driven development. In the future we will have robot tanks, and there is little reason they'll need to build the same way. The will be generally expendable, such that certain principles of survivability are secondary to battle field dominance. Or more automated tanks that have the turret and gunnery system automated to that none of the crew are in the turret, once again that would change the look. So while you can preach the all guiding principal that takes us to a modern tank is perfect, don't assume it functions outside the bounds of technology.

ShumaGorath wrote: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.

No $hi+! Thats what this whole thread is about. The point alot of these tangents are about are that Imperial tanks are not modern tanks. That they really shouldn't be. So if you really want to contribute and detract propose some ideas and not just smash on everyone elses.

Areas in need of improvement:
-track and suspension
-reasonable turret and cannon proportions
-ways of representing sponson weapons
-general foot print area

Can I just say something mythos.

You critisize Shumagorath's argument about technology by saying "technology is RELATIVE".

Then say WW1 tanks weren't jokes. Well yes they are by your very own argument. In terms of the tank as we see one today ie. relatively, the WW1 tanks were jokes. just as, in terms of technology, the very first cars were jokes (I'm talking first first cars here). Yes they were amazing at the time ("wow, a thing with wheels that powers itself, crikey Jeeves we'd beeter get ourselves one of those") but compared to the car as it is nowadays, they were jokes.

I'm going to have to agree with both of you though overall. We are looking at a time when the "secrets" of technology are kept hidden by what are essentially half machine, religious fanatics. Who knows what goes on.

But the LR is rediculous. It's needed a redsign since before I can remember my holidays. Especially for a society that has supposedly advanced technology (how old is Eisenhorn?).

In terms of design ideas, a brinign in line is what is desperately needed. The LR looks out of place when compared to the comparatively sleek and sexy BB and Macha. A much bigger turret is a must. Personally i think the Demolisher should be reduced to having a hull mountie. Sponsoons should be replaced wih co-axial guns. I've never liked sponsoons, silly things stuck on the side that they are.

In terms of overall Guard vehicles I'd like to see a bit more variation overall. Enough Chimera and LR chassis based vehicles. They're geting boring. How about some armoured cars, halftracks. How about a light tank (so us Blood PAct players can take a proper representation of the AT70), maybe making the LR a heavy tank (hence making the whole thing more WW2ish, which is where I think GW have always tried to stab it). More variation people. I know you can use counts as, but what about actual rules for an armoured car with a small turret (Lascannon + heavy bolter??), that can be para'd onto the battlefield?

Meta.

meta-ridley wrote:Can I just say something mythos.

You critisize Shumagorath's argument about technology by saying "technology is RELATIVE".

Then say WW1 tanks weren't jokes. Well yes they are by your very own argument. In terms of the tank as we see one today ie. relatively, the WW1 tanks were jokes. just as, in terms of technology, the very first cars were jokes (I'm talking first first cars here). Yes they were amazing at the time ("wow, a thing with wheels that powers itself, crikey Jeeves we'd beeter get ourselves one of those") but compared to the car as it is nowadays, they were jokes.

Let me quote myself...

aka_mythos wrote:Low tech, only by comparison of today. Technology is relative, to a cave man it'd be divine.

My point was that technology has a relationship to the time it was made. That it is my opinion you must compare it within the context of that time frame. It is that "relation" that is relative, as in related and connected.

Your making a semantic argument, most likely due out of confusion. The juxtaposition was intended to show how it is silly to make statements that a whole period of design is without merits.

With in their historic context WWI tanks were not jokes, they were dangerous killing machines, moving fortifications. Within the minimally related context of today, they are low tech, but were of the highest tech at their time. But it is that "relationship" to their time that made the WWI era tanks mark on history.

meta-ridley wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with both of you though overall. We are looking at a time when the "secrets" of technology are kept hidden by what are essentially half machine, religious fanatics. Who knows what goes on....

Exactly. I'm not saying WWI designs are the end all be all. I've just been trying to get people to toss idea around without calling ideas stupid. The imagery of the Imperium in 40k is this blending of colonial Europe with bits of old and new technology; a balancing act of the old and new order. The best way to think of it is, how would you assemble modern technology, even with a blue print, in the past.

Even if you gave a early 20th century General the blueprints for an Abrams battle tank and a manual on the tactics to employ it he would not be able to use it as is. He would have to adapt aspects of it. Rivets instead of welds, steel instead of chobim armor, fixed guns instead of turrets, a slower cruising speed, a larger crew. Thats the 40k universe... less sophisticated people trying to replicate significantly more advanced technology than they understand.

The most powerful tanks are 1000's of years old. The space marines' tanks are built by a mysterious STC machine, where you dump materials in and out pops a rhino. Imperial Guard tanks are what the Imperium can build with the best of their understanding of old technology. Reverse engineered weapons built only with the Imperiums current understanding of technology and not the pinnacle of technology humanity used to have. The original design for the Leman Russ probably had many fewer rivets and resembled a space marine tank more than its current incarnation.

meta-ridley wrote:But the LR is rediculous. It's needed a redsign since before I can remember my holidays. Especially for a society that has supposedly advanced technology (how old is Eisenhorn?).

I realize it is... thats why I started a thread to discuss how it should change or be redesigned. The point of my tirade on ShumaGorath was that he shot down a number of ideas without adding his own to the discussion. That my remarks on WWI was intended to point out how some of the design aspects weren't bad, they were just the result of technological limitations and that at the time they were the best that could be done.

Example, in 40k the imperium obviously doesn't have the ability to produce the really large low profile turrets, we have today, thus they can not mount their anti-personnel suppressive fire weapons on the top of the turret. So what option does that leave you if you believe its a necessity? Sponson mounted or co-axial mounted weapons or something else.

There is also the aspects of some technologies being more advanced than others. Within the Imperium not all areas of technology have necessarily been studied evenly. Point is just because it makes sense to us, realize that modern vehicles and technology do as a result of the sum total of all the technologies that went into them; if you remove a single technology from that collection you change how technology manifests itself. A car looks the way it does because of the newer manufacturing methods, the aerodynamic studies, the development of alloys and other materials; if in the 80's companies didn't invest in aluminum manufacturing, computer design, robotic assembly, and wind tunnels and gages the modern car would not look like it does today.

The Imperium is that time and place where certain technological linchpins have bin removed. They obviously don't know how to weld. The vast majority of vehicle construction is overseen by "guild" type priest hood who despite their meticulousness add probably add inconsistency to vehicles such that not all the parts of every Chimera are interchangeable with every other Chimera. Its those things that are easy to take for granted, but are an important aspect to the Imperiums character.

meta-ridley wrote:In terms of design ideas, a brining in line is what is desperately needed. The LR looks out of place when compared to the comparatively sleek and sexy BB and Macha. A much bigger turret is a must. Personally i think the Demolisher should be reduced to having a hull mounted. Sponsons should be replaced with co-axial guns. I've never liked sponsons, silly things stuck on the side that they are.

I agree, for the most part. The Leman Russ needs to look like it fits in with Baneblade. I think the macharius is the ideal look, though it should be scaled down in size in an appropriate way since it'd have less in the turret... turret comes down in size the chassis comes down in size so as to maintain the proportions.

(For the sake of avoiding confusion, I will use the terminology like GW does, since GW refers to them like this: Co-axial = aligned parallel to the main cannon; Pintle mounted = on the turret like a gunners nest;

I think it makes sense that the sponson weapons could be moved up to the top of the tank into pintle mounted positions with the the front sponson moved to a co-axial position.

While I think it makes perfect sense to do that (as I said some posts ago), I think sponsons are an aspect of the leman russ' identity. That redesigning them to be less obtrusive would be preferred to outright removing them. Imagine something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jagdpanzer38.jpg
With this things turret and a pair of its front hull machine guns mounted to the sloped armor of the first vehicle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SdKfz182.jpg
Imagine them scaled up, riveted to some degree. You'd have something in between the extremes of a full blown shift from WWI style to modern.

Even the macharius has more sensible sponsons than the leman russ. Just maintaining those macharian sponsons on a scaled down macharius would maintain the identity of the Leman Russ better.

Point is there are some shades of gray between between Imperial WWI aesthetic and full blown modernized look.

meta-ridley wrote:
In terms of overall Guard vehicles I'd like to see a bit more variation overall. Enough Chimera and LR chassis based vehicles. They're geting boring. How about some armoured cars, halftracks. How about a light tank (so us Blood PAct players can take a proper representation of the AT70), maybe making the LR a heavy tank (hence making the whole thing more WW2ish, which is where I think GW have always tried to stab it). More variation people. I know you can use counts as, but what about actual rules for an armoured car with a small turret (Lascannon + heavy bolter??), that can be para'd onto the battlefield?
Meta.

I'm all for armored cars and jeeps type vehicles the half track might "tread" too much on the orks. Thats not to say it shouldn't be done, just cautiously so. Light tanks would also be good. I do think the worry their is in maintaining the uniqueness of light tanks and sentinels since from a fluff perspective sentinels fill that role (not necessarily well enough). Make them have different weapon options, make the light tank fast but vulnerable to terrain and then maybe there would be enough distinction.