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.

Someones doodle... interesting:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/leman%20russ%20drawing/TheMuffinKing/Tanks1/001.jpg

My concept of a reworked russ...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30148-.html

I think that the old Leman Russ design is legendary.. it is one of those few models that has stood the test of GW history and still makes it's way across countless gamers tabletops. (It's like the genestealer model, why f*&k with something that is already perfect?)

But, saying that, I do recommend they update the cannon and the front sponson. Even though they do represent technology that would be a few millenia old look at the baneblade it is old too but doesn't have a goofy cannon.

It could definately benefit from a good ol' spruce up, from engine detail to overall details, IMHO that is all it needs.

See, the problem here is that you're all thinking rationally. The Russ does not need to be redesigned, for one crucial reason.

It looks cool.

Admit it. It does. And GW won't give a rat's rear-quarters about functionality. They don't care whether or not their fictional tank design could clear a trench or make it over obstacles, because it won't ever have to!

It's a tiny plastic tank, for crap's sakes!!! IT DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK, IT JUST HAS TO LOOK GOOD.

And it does. This brings up a much more important point. GW follows "the Rule of Cool", and functionality and efficient design are the furthest things from their mind.

It looks cool.

I think it looks ridiculous and stupid, and I have since I was 12. Given that half of this thread thinks it looks god awful I'm not sure the rule of cool argument is going to suffice. Sometimes people think functional looking things are cool.

It looked stupid and ridiculous to me when i first saw it, but then i saw a whole IG tank division painted so awesomely it rivalled chuck norris' beard.

So I became totally turned around on the subject.

It's cool.

Wow, I can still remember when the Russ first came out - we thought it was so wonderful (and compared to GW's only other tank kits at the time, the ancient rhino and land raider, it _was_ wonderderful )

Personally I'd be happy to see a 'baby baneblade' - a lower wider longer Russ in the general style of a baneblade. But if GW has just spent money recutting the existing sprues, I guess that pushes a potential full redesign further down the wishlist for GW themselves...

Still, IG is popular enough to justify regularly udated codexes (unlike certain armies that shall remain namless), so at some point the GW accountants may well decide they'd sell a zillion redesigned Russes.

I said this in another, similar thread but I like the Leman Russ look, I think it is very distinctive, even if a bit dated looking.

Of course I wouldn't mind if it was redesigned with a more modern look that takes into account better tank tech but I hope they don't dull it down like the Land Raider. The old Land Raider was very distinctive and the new one now looks kind of like a large Rhino. I'd hate to see that happen to the Russ.

@aka:

While GW probably could do better than the scratchbuild, out of everything that's popped up, that's easily the best-looking thing that I've seen in a while that is even close to the Leman Russ artwork that has been displayed since the Russ debut in 2E.

The problem is 40k tanks are squared off relative to modern tanks. That is, they are proportionally much wider (and taller) than what one finds in reality.

The basic Russ is woefully undersized at 5" long x 3" wide, like a Chimera. A Land Raider is 7" long x 4" wide (no sponsons). Even if the sponsonless Russ were bumped to 6" x 3.5", that'd be a huge improvement

Also, you're using a 4' per inch model scale, and that doesn't seem right when you consider the height of a SM model. SM are supposed to be 8' tall, and they're not 2" models like we have with 1/35 scale models or Inquisitor models.

aka_mythos wrote:
Someones doodle... interesting:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/leman%20russ%20drawing/TheMuffinKing/Tanks1/001.jpg

My concept of a reworked russ...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30148-.html

Hmm... Apparently you like huge, oversized turrets, like the M-1.
____

Sicarious85 wrote:I think that the old Leman Russ design is legendary..

It's only fielded because IG players have no choice in the matter as to what their Russ looks like.

Just like the Defiler. The model can be seriously flawed, but if that's the model, then that's what people will field.

And because people are inherently lazy, conversions are a rarity.

Yes, people can buy FW. But because FW charges so much, and the design isn't *that* different, there's not much valuable data here.

But to conclude that people actively like the current Russ design, when there are no signficant alternatives easily available, that's going too far.

____

Brother Captain Andrecus wrote:It looks cool.

IT JUST HAS TO LOOK GOOD.

In that case, it fails completely. The current model looks like horrible.
____

Clang wrote:Personally I'd be happy to see a 'baby baneblade'

But if GW has just spent money recutting the existing sprues, I guess that pushes a potential full redesign further down the wishlist for GW themselves...

Still, IG is popular enough to justify regularly udated codexes (unlike certain armies that shall remain namless), so at some point the GW accountants may well decide they'd sell a zillion redesigned Russes.

As the various conversions and concepts show, GW actually could do a *lot* worse than a baby Baneblade.

I really hope we get a redesign. That kit is so dated, it's embarrassing.

If GW has the current Russ soldier on through the end of 5th, we're probably stuck with it forever.

I don't mind the current russ design too much but if there were a redesign I would prefer it not pick up too much future tech and lose too many rivets. So far the baby baneblade strikes me as the most agreeable, but what about something malcador sized with wider tracks? Malcador/Russ comparison for your convenience: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20Guard/Krieg/tanks/Malcador/malc6.jpg

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem is 40k tanks are squared off relative to modern tanks. That is, they are proportionally much wider (and taller) than what one finds in reality.

The basic Russ is woefully undersized at 5" long x 3" wide, like a Chimera. Even if the sponsonless Russ were bumped to 6" x 3.5", that'd be a huge improvement

Also, you're using a 4' per inch model scale, and that doesn't seem right when you consider the height of a SM model. SM are supposed to be 8' tall, and they're not 2" models like we have with 1/35 scale models or Inquisitor models.

Actually I went 28mm = 6ft or about 4.6mm=1ft. I used a guardsmen from when the kit was first made for comparison. A leman russ would come to 21' long 12' wide (without sponsons). If a leman russ is too wide its because of those sponsons and not the general scale of it. As a modern tank it certainly is too tall, but a modern tank doesn't have sponsons so it can get away with that. I made a post earlier about that. One could make the argument that the scale is out of wack because they infantry models have changed, but that isn't what you've said.

Bringing the leman russ upto 6"adds about 12ft to the real life length making it 33ft long. Despite showing that its reasonable for a main battle tank to be in the low twenties of feet long. I said it before the foot print of modern battle tanks are like these:
Abrams: 26ft by 12ft
Merkava: 25ft by 12.2ft
Leclerc: 22.5ft by12.2ft
Challenger 2: 27ft by 11.6ft

Leman Russ: 21ft by 12ft

Thus a Leman Russ model only needs to be .2 in (5mm) to 1.1 in (28mm) larger depending on how large a battle tank the leman russ is meant to be relative to modern tanks. Not the almost 54mm your talking about.

The turret on my drawing was intended to be more reminiscent of a King Tiger than an Abrams, but it was just something I whipped together to show how aspects of the aesthetic could be stretched into a more modern look. Personally I like the more dome like turrets of the T55 through T72, but that isn't what the leman russ is about.

Clang wrote:Wow, I can still remember when the Russ first came out - we thought it was so wonderful (and compared to GW's only other tank kits at the time, the ancient rhino and land raider, it _was_ wonderderful )

Same, I remember flipping through the black and white catalog that had the "Coming Soon!" pic of the Leman Russ Tank and just below it an Eldar Jetbike.

made me want to switch to Imperial Guard.

realism has no place in wh40k, and i like the Leman Russ as it is, i would love it if they kept the same overall design/shape and just changed a few details and made a full range of plastic weapon options.

even having said that i still want to buy a couple of Leman Russ tanks just to own. $$$$ is always the limiting factor.

I think realism has a place so long as it doesn't push too much of the fantasy aside. Wanting a tank to be roughly the appropriate size, that fine. Wanting an imperial guard tank to represent modern notions of tank design probably go too far. There is something in the middle. Just people who want 40k to be more than 40k in the realism department are going to be disappointed. 40k tanks are not intended to be anywhere near the realm of realism scale model tanks attempt to achieve.

My version didn't actually end up any more "realistic" than the OOB Russ, it just sucks in a different way.

@Agamemnon2.
i like the way it looks. it can look great when done.
looks like you worked hard on it.

Aga, add rivetsX1000000000 and that will look Great!

I have to agree that since it's the only design in tanks for IG then we're stuck with it until GW decides to revamp the design.

While I personally don't like the design, I don't hate it either. However, I do like the game. One day, the powers in charge of GW may say "hey, let's try something a little cooler and less cartoony". Then they may just roll over and go back to sleep... or they can design something that looks nicer. Heck, FW does it already. One can only hope (sigh).

I like the design and the character. Somehow it's pleasing to the eye. The only thing I don't like is the flat bottom of the turret, only noticed today but from a low perspective it looks wrong. I always use the turret boxes, the turret is too small without, however I wouldn't want it much bigger than the curret with boxes.

Things however I would like would be to see it get the 'rhino' treatment. Not so much that the old ones go out of date (poor sods on here have lots of the things!). I'd like the side armour to be in sections so that the tracks could be enclosed as now, or have them open like the rhino. Cannon could be improved, as could the sponson and engine/exhust details. I DO NOT want a new look. I like the current look as it is. Also I don't want a 'mini baneblade'. The Baneblade is it's own iconic tank and look, and while I don't mind others inspired by russess/blades (malcador etc) I feel that the Russ look should stay. It's 40K, not reality. Look at any of the tanks kits - none of them would ever work in real life, neither should the Russ. If it bugs people that much then play historical wargames instead. But as i said I have no gripe with a few modifications to the kit to give the option of making it look a little more 'real'.

While they're at it the Chimera hull could do with the same treatment.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The current model looks like horrible.

Unfortunately for you GW would not radically redesign the LR at this point for many reasons. It has been around for a long time, its image has been shown as it is in comics, games, books, etc. The new guard book too, of course.
The LR is not going to get re-designed. No offense to anyone who has converted a LR in this thread, but I prefer the current model to all the alternatives proposed so far. Just add some details and it's fine.

kharndude wrote:@Agamemnon2.
i like the way it looks. it can look great when done.
looks like you worked hard on it.

Thank you, and yes, I did. I've already inquired after some rivets from my local model shop, hopefully I can get some 1/35 plastic or resin ones, I do not fancy making my own en masse, especially the domed sort. Some parts will also get some larger rivets and other detail.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It looks cool.

I think it looks ridiculous and stupid, and I have since I was 12. Given that half of this thread thinks it looks god awful I'm not sure the rule of cool argument is going to suffice. Sometimes people think functional looking things are cool.

When Shuma, JohnnyHwang, and I agree on something, thar be evil afoot. I have 6-10 of the puppies laying around (I've lost count), but they are hideously ugly as presented. Actually you could keep the iconic image with in line with fluff and previous pictures with just small modifications. Even just a tweeked turrent and a cut to show some of the wheels would be an improvement. If you have to have sponsons, fix that look as well

I myself wouldnt mind seeing a tank that is a little easier to transport. When transporting my Russ' I have to watch the size of box I put it in otherwise the gunner on top has his arms break off (I stopped regluing them at this point)

That said, I think the Leman Russ is iconic of the IG and I would be ashamed if they changed it from what it is to something worse or undeserving of surpassing this "legend"

How would you feel about a redesigned turrent only, more akin to a vanquisher turrent?

This is my attempt from a few years ago. I went for the small baneblade look, widened the turret and reversed the hull. I still wanted it to be recognisable as a russ, but a little less, erm, WMC looking. And one of these days I'll finish it



More photos on my site if you're interested.

That's a nice design, Si. I would have gone for a more prominent driver's compartment myself, but yours is a very good effort nonetheless.

Screw the antiquated stuff. Slap side sponsons and a front sponson on this bad boy and give me some sleekness. ;-)

I couldnt care less about the style of any of the tanks (as an ork player I dont really have this issue...I think a lot of really good points have been made however.

My biggest beef with the tank is rather straight forward the tank treads on the rhino are a big enough pain to get put together let alone what I have seen as far as chimera and I assume (since i havent seen the tracks for it) the russ.

So i think the tracks themselves need to be set more like the rhino at least where certain sections are all one piece instead of this lookee theres 8 billion track parts just to get htis thing together wheee

In a previous post I broke down the basic way a person could do a "modern" Leman Russ. The simple fact is that a modern battle tank would never have sponsons ever, all the complaints of a leman russes high profile ultimately stem from the fact that it needs arching sides to mount sponsons. Modern tanks get around that need by mounting the weapons that would other wise be in sponsons into a position coaxial to the main cannon, as well as as on the multiple weapons mounted atop the turret. There is a strong enough parallel; a Abrams tank will have a main cannon and a machine gun, with two optional machine guns, a Leman Russ has a battle cannon, a heavy bolter, and two optional heavy bolters.
Leman Russes have only a slightly smaller foot print but just as much mass.

Aside from that any design will always look antiquated without adequately redesigned sponsons. Anyone out there have a good idea for designing "modern" sponsons?

Gaznab wrote:I couldnt care less about the style of any of the tanks (as an ork player I dont really have this issue...I think a lot of really good points have been made however.

My biggest beef with the tank is rather straight forward the tank treads on the rhino are a big enough pain to get put together let alone what I have seen as far as chimera and I assume (since i havent seen the tracks for it) the russ.

So i think the tracks themselves need to be set more like the rhino at least where certain sections are all one piece instead of this lookee theres 8 billion track parts just to get htis thing together wheee

A Russ is just like the chimera, but even the rhino is similar to those. The rhino only has it simpler because its wheels are fixed to the chassis and half of its tracks are covered by the hull and thus aren't provided. The IG tank wheels are both a blessing and a curse, they allow alot of flexibility as far as customizing but are pain at times.

Frazzled wrote:When Shuma, JohnnyHwang, and I agree on something, thar be evil afoot.

If HBMC comes in here and agrees as well, I think that's the fifth sign of the Apocalypse. Or the fifth Apocalypse book, I forget which.

If the turret was 'biggerized' and the guns 'smallerized', it'd look a lot better. Sure, the tracks still might not work, but I could live with those changes. The turret is way to small and it compensates by having a lascannon and battlecannon that are giant. It'd keep the overall look of the tank. Don't be surprised if the new LR kit looks a lot like a FW model that they copied, since GW is pretty big on that right now.

In a previous post I broke down the basic way a person could do a "modern" Leman Russ. The simple fact is that a modern battle tank would never have sponsons ever, all the complaints of a leman russes high profile ultimately stem from the fact that it needs arching sides to mount sponsons. Modern tanks get around that need by mounting the weapons that would other wise be in sponsons into a position coaxial to the main cannon, as well as as on the multiple weapons mounted atop the turret. There is a strong enough parallel; a Abrams tank will have a main cannon and a machine gun, with two optional machine guns, a Leman Russ has a battle cannon, a heavy bolter, and two optional heavy bolters.

Aside from that any design will always look antiquated without adequately redesigned sponsons. Anyone out there have a good idea for designing "modern" sponsons?

Sponsons have no functional purpose in combat, are difficult to man, compromise the integrity of the vehicle, provide an easily damaged non redundant system, and reduce the tanks ability to run through things (like forests).

Sponsons have NEVER been a good idea. For sponsons to look good the tank would have to be a totally bizarre design like the land raider. About the only way the russ could make it workable would be tinyturrets below the rotation arc of the main gun. Still inside of the tanks footprint rather than expanding it.